[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200311155458.GA24376@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:54:58 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, jack@...e.cz,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
bvanassche@....org, keith.busch@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mwilck@...e.com, yuyufen@...wei.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: disk revalidation updates and OOM
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:03:43PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> >> 979c690d block: move clearing bd_invalidated into check_disk_size_change
> >> f0b870d block: remove (__)blkdev_reread_part as an exported API
> >> 142fe8f block: fix bdev_disk_changed for non-partitioned devices
> >> a1548b6 block: move rescan_partitions to fs/block_dev.c
> > Just to make sure we are on the same page: if you revert all four it
> > works, if you rever all but
> >
> > a1548b6 block: move rescan_partitions to fs/block_dev.c
> >
> > it doesn't?
>
> After reverting 142fe8f, rescan_partitions would be called in block/ioctl.c
> and cause a build failure. So I need to also revert a1548b6 to provide
> rescan_partitions.
>
> OR if I manually add the following diff instead of reverting a1548b6, then yes,
> it works too.
Ok, so 142fe8f is good except for the build failure.
Do 142fe8f and 979c690d work with the build fix applied? (f0b870d
shouldn't be interesting for this case).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists