From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (dggsgout12.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8C931C5F39; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 01:05:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783299933; cv=none; b=a1ZqzgDHucBxZ8ZBEX9bE1xc4j/6PQNNjEFhYeRXzlT4a/uR11WlLxPyj/uQblbwdc+6sVfBACMj4bqm7oFgt+x9+2BPZ7O3KwNx/lUgq3sfCj9sA9KIpryoufOhjogYK8Syrj9pZV/RCN7JEYNZpMnObiPef37NdC782hJ8blE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783299933; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1nT2r483PMemz+eeDXRcKDdvJvT4D2SJlRXJ7t9Hi7E=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=T29viymtH6RS9eBBYYPkYDHbkMhtPdJzR+mOXFmae0F2MXcW/3VJ5h0WFEGO8339WKeRlbqBQqhYJkkCJf0EkRfAux1yvrrHafNzkOZv2vlYHEZyoVYeutvIvH1wQ+Z/FfA+y9bUMeqzZxKVWJJRMpmFMSoXXOTIq8a43MIK63Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huaweicloud.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huaweicloud.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.177]) by dggsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4gtmNw5Z2PzKHMMP; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:05:04 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [10.116.40.112]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14CC4057D; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:05:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.176.179] (unknown [10.174.176.179]) by APP1 (Coremail) with UTF8SMTPSA id cCh0CgC3xnJP_0pqa1rSAA--.40649S3; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 09:05:21 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <28c3d5ea-fab3-4e52-afbe-2e0fad854912@huaweicloud.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 09:05:19 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] null_blk: initialize lock mutex before registering configfs subsystem To: Bart Van Assche , axboe@kernel.dk, dlemoal@kernel.org, nilay@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, kch@nvidia.com, johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com, kbusch@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yangerkun@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com, wozizhi@huawei.com References: <20260704092323.748772-1-wozizhi@huaweicloud.com> <33ec54bf-b6b5-466b-82fb-f05b133336c9@acm.org> From: Zizhi Wo In-Reply-To: <33ec54bf-b6b5-466b-82fb-f05b133336c9@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:cCh0CgC3xnJP_0pqa1rSAA--.40649S3 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoW7Wr4kuw4kXw17ZFWfKF1kAFb_yoWkWwc_Aw 4kZr48Xrn7Cw45Cr1xKFnxZryUJr4v9r1kGw12vrZxGFy7XrnxJ3W5A3s3Gw48Kr47CrZ8 CrW5ZFWavr17CjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUjb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbxxYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l1xkIjI8I6I8E6xAIw20E Y4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM28CjxkF64kEwV A0rcxSw2x7M28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWDJVCq3wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x02 67AKxVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I 0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40E x7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x 0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lFIxGxcIEc7CjxVA2Y2ka0xkIwI1lc7CjxVAaw2AF wI0_Jw0_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4 xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1q6r43 MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I 0E14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWU JVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUF1 v3UUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: pzr2x6tkl6x35dzhxuhorxvhhfrp/ 在 2026/7/4 21:25, Bart Van Assche 写道: >> diff --git a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c b/drivers/block/null_blk/ >> main.c >> index f8c0fd57e041..98616d290c5c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/null_blk/main.c >> @@ -2161,13 +2161,12 @@ static int __init null_init(void) >>       config_group_init(&nullb_subsys.su_group); >>       mutex_init(&nullb_subsys.su_mutex); >> +    mutex_init(&lock); >>       ret = configfs_register_subsystem(&nullb_subsys); >>       if (ret) >>           return ret; >> -    mutex_init(&lock); >> - >>       null_major = register_blkdev(0, "nullb"); >>       if (null_major < 0) { >>           ret = null_major; > > Why an explicit mutex_init() call instead of changing "static struct > mutex lock" into "static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock)"? Additionally, shouldn't > the "lock" name be made more descriptive since it has file scope? > > Thanks, > > Bart. Thanks for your suggestion, this is indeed more appropriate. I'll send out a v2 shortly. Thanks, Zizhi Wo