On 2017/5/8 下午12:39, tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello Li > > > ＞ ＞ From: "tang.junhui" ＜tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx＞ > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ ＞ Currently, names of bcache devices displayed as bcache0, bcache16, > > ＞ ＞ bcache32, etc. This patch changes their names as bcache0, bcache1, > > ＞ ＞ bcache2, etc. > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ ＞ Signed-off-by: tang.junhui ＜tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx＞ > > ＞ ＞ --- > > ＞ ＞ drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 2 +- > > ＞ ＞ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ ＞ diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > > ＞ ＞ index 3a19cbc..867d9a9 100644 > > ＞ ＞ --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > > ＞ ＞ +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c > > ＞ ＞ @@ -793,7 +793,7 @@ static int bcache_device_init(struct > bcache_device *d, unsigned block_size, > > ＞ ＞ } > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ ＞ set_capacity(d-＞disk, sectors); > > ＞ ＞ - snprintf(d-＞disk-＞disk_name, DISK_NAME_LEN, "bcache%i", minor); > > ＞ ＞ + snprintf(d-＞disk-＞disk_name, DISK_NAME_LEN, "bcache%i", > minor / BCACHE_MINORS); > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ ＞ d-＞disk-＞major = bcache_major; > > ＞ ＞ d-＞disk-＞first_minor = minor; > > ＞ ＞ > > ＞ > > ＞ Can I understand that the next patch just revert this modification ? If > > ＞ yes, I suggest to combine these 2 patch into one. > > > This patch changes bcache devices names from bcache0, bcache16, ... to > bcache0, bcache1, ... > > and the other patch fix leakage of minor numbers, they are different issues. Yes, they might be two different issue. But this patch set only has two patches, and the first patch is reverted in second patch, it does not make sense to me. Coly -- Coly Li -- 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
