[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<IA1PR10MB7240E5709D1EF80F64E7CDC598CE2@IA1PR10MB7240.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:09:26 +0000
From: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"yukuai1@...weicloud.com" <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk"
<axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
and loop open
Hi Christoph,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2024 10:15 AM
> To: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
> Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> yukuai1@...weicloud.com; hch@....de; axboe@...nel.dk
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 for-6.11/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
> and loop open
>
> Umm, so this is back to not just doing autoclear all the time?
>
> What I suggested was to go to my RFC patch that still does the unconditional
> autclear, but which sets rundown when there was just a single opener.
Actually we thought that there could be a race between openers due to which disk_openers could be more than 1 and due to which the Lo_rundown cannot be set. Hence LTP test could fail. But if I understand correctly, I think the LTP test is meant to run separately without any other processes opening the loop device. I will send the next version with the change which sets rundown when there is just a single opener.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists