Re: [PATCH 01/32] block: Provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions
Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.bcache.devel,gmane.linux.block,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel.device-mapper.devel,gmane.linux.kernel.drbd.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs,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 7/4/23 09:14, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 07:06:26AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 7/4/23 05:21, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> +struct bdev_handle {
>>> + struct block_device *bdev;
>>> + void *holder;
>>> +};
>>
>> Please explain in the patch description why a holder pointer is introduced
>> in struct bdev_handle and how it relates to the bd_holder pointer in struct
>> block_device. Is one of the purposes of this patch series perhaps to add
>> support for multiple holders per block device?
>
> That is all in patch 0/32. Why repeat it?
This cover letter: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/[email protected]/T/#t?
The word "holder" doesn't even occur in that cover letter so how could the
answer to my question be present in the cover letter?
Bart.