Re: [PATCH] block: update locking context for blk_free_devt
From: Jens Axboe
Date: Mon Oct 13 2014 - 16:33:21 EST
On 2014-10-13 14:26, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> writes:
On 2014-10-13 12:35, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
Against 764f612c6c3c23 linux-block/for-next.
After 2da78092 this function will not longer sleepy
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
block/genhd.c | 4 +---
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
index 09da5e4..ae9aaa5 100644
@@ -441,12 +441,10 @@ int blk_alloc_devt(struct hd_struct *part, dev_t *devt)
* Free @devt which was allocated using blk_alloc_devt().
- * Might sleep.
+ * Don't care.
void blk_free_devt(dev_t devt)
if (devt == MKDEV(0, 0))
What's this against? The might_sleep() was killed about a month ago by
commit 46f341ffcfb5. The comment wasn't updated though, it should be.
I've found this during development other blockdev related feature.
can you please point what is your development branch.
Ah, I see. The devel branches are always for-3.x/core and
for-3.x/drivers, so right now the current ones are for-3.18/core and so
forth. That fix went into master, and I generally don't pull into the
devel branches unless I really have to. This particular one should
probably have gone in, since it spews a warning. Generally I expect
people running them to use for-next, which really should be merged with
master. I will just pull it in. for-next can and will be rebased
sometimes though, only the real devel branches are more or less set in
stone when it comes to history. So for development purposes, those
should be used and not for-next.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/