On Thu 24-01-19 20:19:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
From: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz
commit 967d1dc144b50ad005e5eecdfadfbcfb399ffff6 upstream.
__loop_release() has a single call site. Fold it there. This is currently not a huge win but it will make following replacement of loop_index_mutex more obvious.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe axboe@kernel.dk Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Hello Greg!
This and the following two (patches 69 & 70) loop patches are just preparatory cleanups for commits 0da03cab87e632 "loop: Fix deadlock when calling blkdev_reread_part()" and 1dded9acf6dc9a "loop: Avoid circular locking dependency between loop_ctl_mutex and bd_mutex". As such they don't fix anything and it doesn't make sense to carry them in stable unless someone backports also the other patches in the series including the fixes themselves (which honestly I don't think is worth it for stable).
Honza
drivers/block/loop.c | 16 +++++++--------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c @@ -1586,12 +1586,15 @@ out: return err; } -static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo) +static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode) {
- struct loop_device *lo; int err;
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
- lo = disk->private_data; if (atomic_dec_return(&lo->lo_refcnt))
return;
goto unlock_index;mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex); if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) { @@ -1601,7 +1604,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_dev */ err = loop_clr_fd(lo); if (!err)
return;
goto unlock_index;
- Otherwise keep thread (if running) and config,
@@ -1611,12 +1614,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_dev } mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex); -}
-static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode) -{
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
- __lo_release(disk->private_data);
+unlock_index: mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex); }