[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/5] mtd: fix bdev exclusive open bugs in block2mtd::add_device()
- From: Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>
- To: dedekind1 gmail com
- Cc: jack suse cz, leochen broadcom com, heiko carstens de ibm com, dm-devel redhat com, adilger kernel dilger ca, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, shaggy linux vnet ibm com, drbd-dev lists linbit com, joel becker oracle com, hch infradead org, aelder sgi com, mfasheh suse com, joern logfs org, reiserfs-devel vger kernel org, viro zeniv linux org uk, swhiteho redhat com, chris mason oracle com, axboe kernel dk, tytso mit edu, sbranden broadcom com, petero2 telia com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, schwidefsky de ibm com, linux-mtd lists infradead org, akpm linux-foundation org
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/5] mtd: fix bdev exclusive open bugs in block2mtd::add_device()
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:42:58 +0100
Hello,
On 11/13/2010 11:38 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 17:15 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> + if (!IS_ERR(bdev)) {
>> + int ret;
>> + ret = bd_claim(bdev, dev);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + blkdev_put(bdev,
>> + FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE);
>
> Would be a bit cleaner to define ea temporary variable:
>
> fmode_t mode = FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE;
>
> Would you to re-send with this little change please?
Yeap, sure.
> And ideally, 2 independent patches would be nicer because you fix 2
> independent issues.
Hmmm... not really. The patch is small enough and splitting it won't
really buy as any better bisectability. Splitting patches into
logical changes is a good thing but it's no religious dogma. Let's
apply it to the point it actually helps.
Thank you.
--
tejun
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]