[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120417021424.GA9418@localhost>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:14:24 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ctalbott@...gle.com,
rni@...gle.com, andrea@...terlinux.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lsf@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, jmoyer@...hat.com, lizefan@...wei.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Lsf] [RFC] writeback and cgroup
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:52:07AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:07:07PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> [..]
> > Vivek, I noticed these lines in cfq code
> >
> > sscanf(dev_name(bdi->dev), "%u:%u", &major, &minor);
> >
> > Why not use bdi->dev->devt? The problem is that dev_name() will
> > return "btrfs-X" for btrfs rather than "major:minor".
>
> Isn't bdi->dev->devt 0? I see following code.
>
> add_disk()
> bdi_register_dev()
> bdi_register()
> device_create_vargs(MKDEV(0,0))
> dev->devt = devt = MKDEV(0,0);
>
> So for normal block devices, I think bdi->dev->devt will be zero, that's
> why probably we don't use it.
Yes indeed. I can confirm this with tracing. There are two main cases
- some filesystems do not have a real device for the bdi.
- add_disk() calls bdi_register_dev() with the devt, however this
information is not passed down for some reason.
device_create_vargs() will try to create a sysfs dev file if the
devt is not MKDEV(0,0).
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists