On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:17:55PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 02:26:17PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > This opens block devices as files. Instead of introducing a separate > > indirection into bdev_open_by_*() vis struct bdev_handle we can just > > make bdev_file_open_by_*() return a struct file. Opening and closing a > > block device from setup_bdev_super() and in all other places just > > becomes equivalent to opening and closing a file. > > > > This has held up in xfstests and in blktests so far and it seems stable > > and clean. The equivalence of opening and closing block devices to > > regular files is a win in and of itself imho. Added to that is the > > ability to do away with struct bdev_handle completely and make various > > low-level helpers private to the block layer. > > It fails to hold up in xfstests for me. > > git bisect leads to: > > commit 321de651fa565dcf76c017b257bdf15ec7fff45d > Author: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Jan 23 14:26:48 2024 +0100 > > block: don't rely on BLK_OPEN_RESTRICT_WRITES when yielding write access > > QA output created by 015 > mkfs failed > (see /ktest-out/xfstests/generic/015.full for details) > umount: /dev/vdc: not mounted. > > ** mkfs failed with extra mkfs options added to "-m reflink=1,rmapbt=1 -i sparse=1,nrext64=1" by test 015 ** > ** attempting to mkfs using only test 015 options: -d size=268435456 -b size=4096 ** > mkfs.xfs: cannot open /dev/vdc: Device or resource busy > mkfs failed > > About half the xfstests fail this way (722 of 1387 tests) Christain, let's chat about testing at LSF - I was looking at this too because we thought it was a ktest update that broke at first, but if we can get you using the automated test infrastructure I built this could get caught before hitting -next
