[PATCH] zram: check bd_openers instead bd_holders

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 12:56:28PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/03/15 12:02), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:54:33AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (02/02/15 16:06), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > So, guys, how about doing it differently, in less lines of code,
> > > > hopefully. Don't move reset_store()'s work to zram_reset_device().
> > > > Instead, move
> > > > 
> > > > 	set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> > > > 	revalidate_disk(zram->disk);
> > > > 
> > > > out from zram_reset_device() to reset_store(). this two function are
> > > > executed only when called from reset_store() anyway. this also will let
> > > > us drop `bool reset capacity' param from zram_reset_device().
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > so we will do in reset_store()
> > > > 
> > > > 	mutex_lock(bdev->bd_mutex);
> > > > 
> > > > 	fsync_bdev(bdev);
> > > > 	zram_reset_device(zram);
> > > > 	set_capacity(zram->disk, 0);
> > > > 
> > > > 	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> > > > 
> > > > 	revalidate_disk(zram->disk);
> > > > 	bdput(bdev);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > and change zram_reset_device(zram, false) call to simply zram_reset_device(zram)
> > > > in __exit zram_exit(void).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Minchan, Ganesh, I sent a patch last night, with the above solution.
> > > looks ok to you?
> > 
> > Just I sent a feedback.
> > 
> 
> thanks.
> yeah, !FMODE_EXCL mode.
> 
> how do you want to handle it -- you want to send a separate patch or
> you want me to send incremental one-liner and ask Andrew to squash them?

Send a new patch based on yours.
Thanks.