[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [NBD] Use per-device semaphore instead of BKL
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:19:17PM -0500, Paul Clements wrote:
>>The dropping of the lock in nbd_do_it is actually critical to the way
>>nbd functions. nbd_do_it runs for the lifetime of the nbd device, so if
>>nbd_do_it were holding some lock (BKL or otherwise), we'd have big problems.
> Why would you want to issue an ioctl from a different process while
> nbd-client is still running?

nbd-client -d (disconnect) is the main reason -- this functionality
would be broken if we didn't allow ioctls anymore

> Allow ioctl's while nbd_do_it is in progress is a *serious* bug. For a

Certain ioctls, yes. There's no harm in NBD_DISCONNECT, though.

> start, if someone else clears the socket then nbd_read_stat will crash.

I agree, NBD_CLEAR_SOCK from another process while nbd_do_it is running
would cause problems. But, if the user-level tools are coded properly,
this is not an issue.

Perhaps your ioctl lock scheme, with an exemption for NBD_DISCONNECT
would work?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-20 22:45    [W:0.042 / U:10.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site