Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755181Ab1BNOIG (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:08:06 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:36771 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754331Ab1BNOIE (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:08:04 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ChqOrP68cDdg1UByKrWlpK/DxAq/kI0hKNDKBNxRP7bcod+4dL0vBahIa9I4yqVNAu o5wwUK5EV0dk+j9HGc72Gvrr4PC3iY8jS1Lzz16wmTEjkAt8+YhvSiDkWRoUTysP1+ep lg+ySef+e+I4GlUxuz4VjDPeOPT/cOwY5gHb4= Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:07:55 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Milan Broz Cc: Tao Ma , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , device-mapper development Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: clear read-only flag in loop_clr_fd. Message-ID: <20110214140755.GL18742@htj.dyndns.org> References: <4D573BBB.6090200@redhat.com> <1297594735-5593-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4D57E67E.1030707@redhat.com> <4D57F357.6060708@tao.ma> <4D580A8B.5050508@redhat.com> <20110214103026.GA18742@htj.dyndns.org> <4D591664.6090203@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D591664.6090203@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1215 Lines: 31 Hello, Milan. On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:47:48PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > With patch below (loop cannot be built as module) it fixes the loop problem. Okay. > But it doesn't fix the read-only snapshot issue and I guess there will be > the same problem with read-only MD code too. > (so the 2) issue here https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/12/209). > > If the call is changed intentionally, we have to fix unconditional blkdev open > calls with read-write flag in this code. > Before doing that I would like to know if it was intentional change or not... Yeap, the change was intentional. It was part of effort to make bdev usages more consistent as before there was no mechanism enforcing ro. It's still problematic as bdev users can clear ro without consulting the actual device driver. Device driver's ->open() is called w/ ro flag but the resulting bdev can be used rw. I wanted to remove that too but filesystems depend on it so maybe later. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/