On Wed 12-07-23 18:06:35, Haris Iqbal wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:38 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Create struct bdev_handle that contains all parameters that need to be > > > passed to blkdev_put() and provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions that > > > return this structure instead of plain bdev pointer. This will > > > eventually allow us to pass one more argument to blkdev_put() without > > > too much hassle. > > > > Can we use the opportunity to come up with better names? blkdev_get_* > > was always a rather horrible naming convention for something that > > ends up calling into ->open. > > > > What about: > > > > struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_dev(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, void *holder, > > const struct blk_holder_ops *hops); > > struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_path(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, > > void *holder, const struct blk_holder_ops *hops); > > void bdev_release(struct bdev_handle *handle); > > +1 to this. > Also, if we are removing "handle" from the function, should the name > of the structure it returns also change? Would something like bdev_ctx > be better? I think the bdev_handle name is fine for the struct. After all it is equivalent of an open handle for the block device so IMHO bdev_handle captures that better than bdev_ctx. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
