From: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
Avoid to access bd_inode directly, prepare to remove bd_inode from
block_devcie.
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>
---
drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
index e34219ea2b05..e645afa4af57 100644
--- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
+++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
@@ -104,8 +104,7 @@ static void xen_update_blkif_status(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
xenbus_dev_error(blkif->be->dev, err, "block flush");
return;
}
- invalidate_inode_pages2(
- blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping);
+ invalidate_bdev(blkif->vbd.bdev_handle->bdev);
for (i = 0; i < blkif->nr_rings; i++) {
ring = &blkif->rings[i];
--
2.39.2
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.