On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:45:10AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > and then considering only two superblocks instead of having a list of > > > all bdevs? > > > > Or why the heck we would even do this to start with? > > That's what I gathered you suggested at LSFMM on hallway talk. No. I explained you that sharing the superblock or has absolutely no effct on the aops after you wanted to it. I said it might be nice for other reasons to have a sb per gendisk. > > iomap has absolutely nothing to do with superblocks. > > > > Now maybe it might make sense to have a superblock per gendisk just > > to remove all the weird special casing for the bdev inode in the > > writeback code. But that's something entirely different than this > > patch. > > The goal behind this is to allow block devices to have its bdev cache > use iomap, right now now we show-horn in the buffer-head aops if we > have to build buffer-heads. > > If this sort of approach is not desirable, let me know what alternative > you would prefer to see, because clearly, I must not have understood > your suggestion. Again, every non-trivial file system right now has more than one set of aops per superblock. I'm not sure what problem you are trying to solve here.
