[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230803-umringt-aufprallen-e3adc44d2c75@brauner>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 20:15:10 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@...il.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] fs: stop using get_super in fs_mark_dead
On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 05:41:26PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> fs_mark_dead currently uses get_super to find the superblock for the
> block device that is going away. This means it is limited to the
> main device stored in sb->s_dev, leading to a lot of code duplication
> for file systems that can use multiple block devices.
>
> Now that the holder for all block devices used by file systems is set
> to the super_block, we can instead look at that holder and then check
> if the file system is born and active, so do that instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
Looks good to me,
Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists