Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:20:51 -0500 | From | Vivek Goyal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] loop: No need to initialize ->queue_lock explicitly before calling blk_cleanup_queue() |
| |
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:30:32AM +0200, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (02/21/11 22:53), Vivek Goyal wrote: > > o Now we initialize ->queue_lock at queue allocation time so driver does > > not have to worry about initializing it before calling blk_cleanup_queue(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/block/loop.c | 3 --- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c > > index 49e6a54..44e18c0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c > > @@ -1641,9 +1641,6 @@ out: > > > > static void loop_free(struct loop_device *lo) > > { > > - if (!lo->lo_queue->queue_lock) > > - lo->lo_queue->queue_lock = &lo->lo_queue->__queue_lock; > > - > > blk_cleanup_queue(lo->lo_queue); > > put_disk(lo->lo_disk); > > list_del(&lo->lo_list); > > Hi, > > (just for note) > There is an incremental patch fixing this case in Andrew's mm tree: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/11/165 > > (block-fix-queue_lock-null-pointer-derefence-in-blk_throtl_exit-v4.patch > added to -mm tree).
Hi Sergey,
Thinking more about it, initializing queue lock in blk_alloc_queue() seems to be even more cleaner to me instead of initializing it to internal lock during blk_cleanup_queue(). If others like the idea, then we can either ask Andrew to drop the patch or I can generate one on top of it.
Thanks Vivek
| |