On 6/26/24 1:55 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> thanks a lot for the review!
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 01:46:50PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/25/24 8:51 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>>> +static int blk_call_notifier_add(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct blk_device_list *new_blkdev;
>>> +
>>> + new_blkdev = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_blkdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!new_blkdev)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + new_blkdev->dev = dev;
>>> + mutex_lock(&blk_notifier_lock);
>>> + list_add_tail(&new_blkdev->list, &blk_devices);
>>> + raw_notifier_call_chain(&blk_notifier_list, BLK_DEVICE_ADD, dev);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&blk_notifier_lock);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> Nit: redundant newline.
>
> I'll remove the newline before the 'return' statement then, right?
Yup
>>> +device_initcall(blk_notifications_init);
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
>>> index b2f1362c4681..8d22ba03e3e1 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
>>> @@ -1687,4 +1687,12 @@ static inline bool bdev_can_atomic_write(struct block_device *bdev)
>>>
>>> #define DEFINE_IO_COMP_BATCH(name) struct io_comp_batch name = { }
>>>
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK_NOTIFIERS
>>
>> #if defined(CONFIG_BLOCK_NOTIFIERS)
>>
>>> +#define BLK_DEVICE_ADD 1
>>> +#define BLK_DEVICE_REMOVE 2
>>> +void blk_register_notify(struct notifier_block *nb);
>>> +void blk_unregister_notify(struct notifier_block *nb);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Surely these helpers should have a !CONFIG_BLOCK_NOTIFIERS failure case
>> definition? Either that, or dummies. As it stands, any caller would need
>> to check if it's enabled or not.
>
> Makes sense. I'll add dummies to the header and always define
> the macros for notification types.
Exactly
> Note that what I'm planning to do is to have the block nvmem provider
> select CONFIG_BLOCK_NOTIFIERS in Kconfig, as without that it simply
> won't work at all.
Right, but then someone else uses them for something else, and then
we'll need it anyway.
--
Jens Axboe
