Re: [PATCH 01/32] block: Provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs,gmane.linux.block,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.drbd.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4,gmane.linux.file-systems.f2fs,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.drivers.mtd,gmane.linux.nfs,gmane.comp.file-systems.nilfs.user,gmane.linux.power-management.general,gmane.linux.raid,gmane.linux.scsi,gmane.comp.file-systems.ocfs2.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.scsi.target.devel,gmane.comp.emulators.xen.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> +struct bdev_handle *blkdev_get_handle_by_dev(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode,
> + void *holder, const struct blk_holder_ops *hops)
> +{
> + struct bdev_handle *handle = kmalloc(sizeof(struct bdev_handle),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + struct block_device *bdev;
> +
> + if (!handle)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + bdev = blkdev_get_by_dev(dev, mode, holder, hops);
> + if (IS_ERR(bdev))
> + return ERR_CAST(bdev);
Would we be better off with a handle->error (and a NULL return from this
function means "we couldn't allocate a handle")? I have no objection
to what you've done here, just wondering if it might end up nicer for
the users.