> So besides my last fput() worry about I think this could work and would be
> probably a bit nicer than what I have. But before going and redoing the whole
> series let me gather some more feedback so that we don't go back and forth.
> Christoph, Christian, Jens, any opinion?
I'll be a bit under
On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 03:28:52AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> I mean, look at claim_swapfile() for example:
> p->bdev = blkdev_get_by_dev(inode->i_rdev,
>FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_EXCL, p);
> if (IS_ERR(p->bdev)) {
>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:47:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> I can see the appeal of not having to introduce the new bdev_handle type
> and just using struct file which unifies in-kernel and userspace block
> device opens. But I can see downsides too - the last fput() happening from
> task work
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:47:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> I can see the appeal of not having to introduce the new bdev_handle type
> and just using struct file which unifies in-kernel and userspace block
> device opens. But I can see downsides too - the last fput() happening from
> task work
On Fri 25-08-23 02:58:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > this is a v2 of the patch series which implements the idea of
> > blkdev_get_by_*()
> > calls returning bdev_handle which is then passed to blkdev_put() [1]. This
> > makes the
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 01:04:31PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is a v2 of the patch series which implements the idea of
> blkdev_get_by_*()
> calls returning bdev_handle which is then passed to blkdev_put() [1]. This
> makes the get and put calls for bdevs more obviously matching
Except for a mostly cosmetic nitpick this looks good to me:
Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig
That's not eactly the deep review I'd like to do, but as I'm about to
head out for vacation that's probably as good as it gets.
