On Fri, Feb 01 2013 at 11:18am -0500, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Kent. > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:15:47AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Eww, not a flag. I meant a completely separate functions, rip out the > > refcounting entirely and have the refcounting-manipulating versions > > available as > > No, I mean, internally there needs to be a way whether the currently > existing linkage is from the old or new interface for exclusive close > to be able to decide whether it can remove it or not. Anyways, let's > wait for Mike for now. The need for the same holder refcount is like I thought: a DM device's active and inactive tables can open the same block devices. I looked at the prospect of pushing the refcount into DM but I don't think it is as clean as having the bd_holder_disk struct continue to provide the refcount. Pushing it into DM would still require an explicit call to bd_unlink_disk_holder. The refcount is really pretty benign; so I'm inclined to leave things as is. -- 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
