On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:57:24AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 07:40:34AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:00:17AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:24:23PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > > It looks like the warning could be avoided in bcachefs by checking for > > > > > whether the parent dir/node still exists at cleanup time, but I'm not > > > > > familiar enough with kobj management to say whether that's the > > > > > right/best solution. It also looks a little odd to me to see a > > > > > /sys/block/<dev>/bcachefs dir when I've not seen any other fs or driver > > > > > do such a thing in the block sysfs dir(s). > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts on this from the block subsystem folks? Is it reasonable to > > > > > leave this link around and just fix the removal check, or is another > > > > > behavior preferred? Thanks. > > > > > > This is the general problem with random cross-subsystem sysfs reference, > > > and why they are best avoided. The block layer tears down all the sysfs > > > objects at del_gendisk time as no one should start using the sysfs files > > > at that point, but a mounted file system or other opener will of course > > > keep the bdev itself alive. > > > > > > > Yeah, makes sense. The fact that the dir goes away despite having the > > bdev open is partly what made this seem a little odd to me. > > > > > I'm not sure why bcachefs is doing this, but no one really should be > > > using the block layer sysfs structures and pointers except for the block > > > layer itself. > > > > > > > From Kent's comments it sounds like it was just some loose carryover > > from old bcache stuff. I had poked around a bit for anything similar and > > it looked to me that current bcache doesn't do this either, but I could > > have missed something. > > > > > > so there's an existing bd_holder mechanism that e.g. device mapper uses > > > > for links between block devices. I think the "this block device is going > > > > away" code knows how to clean those up. > > > > > > > > We're not using that mechanism - and perhaps we should have been, I'd > > > > need a time machine to ask myself why I did it that way 15 years back. > > > > > > Well, at least Tejun had a very strong opinion that no one should be > > > abusing sysfs symlinks for linking up subsystems at all, see commit > > > 49731baa41df404c2c3f44555869ab387363af43, which is also why this code > > > is marked deprecated and we've not added additional users. > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll send a patch to remove this once I'm back from vacation. > > No, we can't remove it - userspace needs to know this topology. When > we've got one sysfs node with a direct relationship to another sysfs > node, that needs to be reflected in syfs. > Do you mean that some related userspace tool relies on this to function, or generally disagreeing with the statement(s) above around links from /sys/block/<dev>/? Brian > What I'm hoping for is that we can get filesystems in general to do this > right, not just bcachefs, so that they finally start showing up in the > tree lsblk reports. >
