On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:15:28PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > * blkdev_get() is extended to include exclusive access management. > @holder argument is added and, if is @FMODE_EXCL specified, it will > gain exclusive access atomically w.r.t. other exclusive accesses. > > * blkdev_put() is similarly extended. It now takes @mode argument and > if @FMODE_EXCL is set, it releases an exclusive access. Also, when > the last exclusive claim is released, the holder/slave symlinks are > removed automatically. Could we get rid of FMODE_EXCL and just make a non-NULL holder field mean to open it exlusively (and pass a holder to the blkdev_put to release it)? > * bd_link_disk_holder() remains the same but bd_unlink_disk_holder() > is no longer necessary and removed. That's a rather asymetric interface. What about having blkdev_get_stacked that require a gendisk as holder and set up the links underneath? > open_bdev_exclusive() and open_by_devnum() can use further cleanup - > rename to blkdev_get_by_path() and blkdev_get_by_devt() and drop > special features. Well, let's leave them for another day. s/blkdev_get_by_devt/blkdev_get_by_dev/ And yes, that rename is a good idea and should go in ASAP after this patch. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
