Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Tue, 7 Nov 2023 16:23:35 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: zram: zram_free_page calls in zram_meta_free
Message-ID: <20231107072335.GA11577@google.com>
References: <ebd87e1e-f941-498a-870e-15743ca3fb1f@linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ebd87e1e-f941-498a-870e-15743ca3fb1f@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/11/06 23:42), Vasily Averin wrote:
> The only place where content of zram entry is accessed and even changed without taken zran lock is
> zram_free_page() calls from zram_meta_free().
> 
> It does not look like problem because zram should not have any users at this point,
> however I still do not understand why this is required?

It's simply pointless. Reset is performed under write init_lock,
which is an upper level per-device lock.