[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002010845040.13031@lnxricardw.se.axis.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:46:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Ricard Wanderlof <ricard.wanderlof@...s.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] blktrans: track open and close calls.
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> This patch adds tracking for open and close calls.
> Now trans ->open and ->release are never called twise in a row
> ->release is also called once before mtd device disappers
> ...
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
> @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ static int blktrans_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
> if (!get_mtd_device(NULL, dev->mtd->index))
> goto out;
>
> + if (dev->open++)
> + goto out;
> +
> if (!try_module_get(tr->owner))
> goto out_tr;
>
> @@ -153,6 +156,10 @@ static int blktrans_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
> struct mtd_blktrans_ops *tr = dev->tr;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + dev->open--;
> + if (dev->open)
> + return 0;
> +
Just a very minor quibble: if you use if (dev->open++) in one function,
why not use if (--dev->open) in the other? Or separate the
increment/decrement from the test, depending on you style preferences.
/Ricard
--
Ricard Wolf Wanderlöf ricardw(at)axis.com
Axis Communications AB, Lund, Sweden www.axis.com
Phone +46 46 272 2016 Fax +46 46 13 61 30
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists