On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:34:59AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Yeah, that's what I was suggesting as well [1] - especially since we > already have bdi->name with a dubious value (but looking into it now, we > would need a separate dev_name field since bdi->name is visible in sysfs so > we cannot change that). That is a little anoying, but not the end of the world. > But Yufen explained to me that this could result in > bogus name being reported when bdi gets re-registered. Not sure if that's > serious enough but it could happen... I don't think that is a problem at all. If it is a problem we can just replace the ->dev_name pointer with one that says "(unregistered)" at unregister time, but to me that seems worse than just keeping the name around.
