[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH -next RFC 02/14] xen/blkback: use bdev api in xen_update_blkif_status()
- To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 23:21:39 -0800
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, axboe@xxxxxxxxx, roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx, colyli@xxxxxxx, kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx, joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx, richard@xxxxxx, vigneshr@xxxxxx, sth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hoeppner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, hca@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, agordeev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx, clm@xxxxxx, josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dsterba@xxxxxxxx, nico@xxxxxxxxxxx, xiang@xxxxxxxxxx, chao@xxxxxxxxxx, tytso@xxxxxxx, adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx, agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx, jack@xxxxxxxx, konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx, willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hare@xxxxxxx, p.raghav@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-bcache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-bcachefs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-erofs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gfs2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nilfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx, yangerkun@xxxxxxxxxx, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Dec 2023 07:22:11 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 02:56:05PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > - invalidate_inode_pages2(
> > > - blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping);
> > > + invalidate_bdev(blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev);
> >
> > blkbak is a bdev exported. I don't think it should ever call
> > invalidate_inode_pages2, through a wrapper or not.
>
> I'm not sure about this. I'm not familiar with xen/blkback, but I saw
> that xen-blkback will open a bdev from xen_vbd_create(), hence this
> looks like a dm/md for me, hence it sounds reasonable to sync +
> invalidate the opened bdev while initialization. Please kindly correct
> me if I'm wrong.
I guess we have enough precedence for this, so the switchover here
isn't wrong. But all this invalidating of the bdev cache seems to
be asking for trouble.
|
