[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZKQUB4rU8Gebhq6R@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 13:43:51 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...nel.org>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Joern Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
"Md. Haris Iqbal" <haris.iqbal@...os.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/32] block: Provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists