On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:08:20AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 07:33:18AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Could add a new, fixed version that doesn't do the refcounting, bcache > > and I imagine md could use that right away (maybe even just split the > > refcounting out into different functions and have dm call those > > directly, probably an easy way to refactor it anyways) > > I don't know. We then would have two interfaces doing about the same > thing and a flag indicating whether the new or old one was used to > create the link so that exclusive close can decide to remove it or > not, which seems a bit complicated. Eww, not a flag. I meant a completely separate functions, rip out the refcounting entirely and have the refcounting-manipulating versions available as bd_link_disk_holder_broken() bd_unlink_disk_holder_broken() or somesuch. > Let's see whether Mike can remove > the weirdness from dm side. That'd be best, but if it can't happen right away it's just a way to isolate the weirdness. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
