Hey, Mike.
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:10:03AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Well judging by the header for commit 49731baa41df404c2c3f44555869ab387363af43
> ("block: restore multiple bd_link_disk_holder() support") it just looks
> like Tejun hates the fact that DM and MD are using this interface. No
> alternative is provided; so the "DON'T USE THIS UNLESS YOU'RE ALREADY
> USING IT." rings hollow.
The original code was gross regarding kobj handling there so I might
have overreacted. Ah right, the refcnt doesn't belong there. The
caller should already own both the master and slave devices (creator
of the former, exclusive opener of the latter) and that really should
be the extent of ownership that block layer tracks.
bk_[un]link_disk_holder() implements completely isolated refcnting
because dm somehow calls the function for the same pair multiple
times.
ISTR the problem w/ block layer was that because this adds a separate
layer of refcnting, it can't be tied to the usual rule of block device
access. ie. we really shouldn't need bd_unlink_disk_holder() but the
linkage's lifetime should be bound to the exclusive open of the slave
device, which can't currently be done.
IIRC, there was only one case where this happens in dm, would you be
interested in tracking that down? I'd be happy to lose the extra
refcnting code and tie it back to bdev exclusive open.
> Kent was talking about using MD (and though he isn't opposed to DM he
> doesn't care to integrate with DM himself). Either DM or MD would
> implicitly enable bcache to use this interface. But in the near-term I
> cannot see why Kent shouldn't be able to use bd_link_disk_holder too.
Being part of dm or dm should make this mostly irrelevant, no?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
