On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:41:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 12:14, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > IOW, isn't the 'get()' always basically paired with the mounting? And > > the 'put()' would probably be best done iin kill_block_super()? > > .. or alternative handwavy approach: > > The fundamental _reason_ for the ->get/put seems to be to make the > 'holder' lifetime be at least as long as the 'struct file' it is > associated with. No? > > So how about we just make the 'holder' always *be* a 'struct file *'? That > > (a) gets rid of the typeless 'void *' part > > (b) is already what it is for normal cases (ie O_EXCL file opens). > > wouldn't it be lovely if we just made the rule be that 'holder' *is* > the file pointer, and got rid of a lot of typeless WTF code? > > Again, this comment (and the previous email) is more based on "this > does not feel right to me" than anything else. > > That code just makes my skin itch. I can't say it's _wrong_, but it > just FeelsWrongToMe(tm). So, initially I think the holder ops were intended to be generic by Christoph but I agree that it's probably not needed. I just didn't massage that code yet. Now on my todo for this cycle!
