Re: [PATCH 01/32] block: Provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions
Haris Iqbal <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.emulators.xen.devel,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.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 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJpMwyhKW23zEfMcsGrBG6Bq0Md40vZ4qj-PgDkR6KWPv8+7PQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:38 PM Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> 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? > > ? >