On Thu 14-09-23 14:03:20, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:48:09AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 12-09-23 19:42:45, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:08:11PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > this series against the VFS vfs.super branch finishes off the work to remove > > > > get_super and move (almost) all upcalls to use the holder ops. > > > > > > > > The first part is the missing btrfs bits so that all file systems use the > > > > super_block as holder. > > > > > > > > The second part is various block driver cleanups so that we use proper > > > > interfaces instead of raw calls to __invalidate_device and fsync_bdev. > > > > > > > > The last part than replaces __invalidate_device and fsync_bdev with upcalls > > > > to the file system through the holder ops, and finally removes get_super. > > > > > > > > It leaves user_get_super and get_active_super around. The former is not > > > > used for upcalls in the traditional sense, but for legacy UAPI that for > > > > some weird reason take a dev_t argument (ustat) or a block device path > > > > (quotactl). get_active_super is only used for calling into the file system > > > > on freeze and should get a similar treatment, but given that Darrick has > > > > changes to that code queued up already this will be handled in the next > > > > merge window. > > > > > > > > A git tree is available here: > > > > > > > > git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git remove-get_super > > > > > > FYI, I've added patches 2-5 as a topic branch to btrfs for-next. > > > > Hum, I don't see them there. Some glitch somewhere? > > There will be a delay before the patches show up in the pushed for-next > branch, some tests failed (maybe not related to this series) and there > are other merge conflicts that I need to resolve first. Ah, I see. Thanks for explanation! Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
