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?
Minchan, I think I'll send my small struct zram clean-up patch after
your init_lock patch. what's your opinion?
-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
