On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:38 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Create struct bdev_handle that contains all parameters that need to be
> passed to blkdev_put() and provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions that
> return this structure instead of plain bdev pointer. This will
> eventually allow us to pass one more argument to blkdev_put() without
> too much hassle.
Can we use the opportunity to come up with better names? blkdev_get_*
was always a rather horrible naming convention for something that
ends up calling into ->open.
What about:
struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_dev(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, void *holder,
const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_path(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode,
void *holder, const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
void bdev_release(struct bdev_handle *handle);
+1 to this.
Also, if we are removing "handle" from the function, should the name of the structure it returns also change? Would something like bdev_ctx be better?
?
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
