[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200420115856.GA12115@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:58:56 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
axboe@...nel.dk, yuyufen@...wei.com, tj@...nel.org,
bvanassche@....org, tytso@....edu, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field to struct
backing_dev_info
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:41:57PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> AFAICT for vboxsf the bdi-name can be anything as long as it is unique, hence
> the "vboxsf-" prefix to make this unique vs other block-devices and the
> ".%d" postfix is necessary because the same export can be mounted multiple
> times (without using bind mounts), see:
> https://github.com/jwrdegoede/vboxsf/issues/3
Shouldn't vboxsf switch to get_tree_single instead of get_tree_nodev?
Having two independent dentry trees for a single actual file system
can be pretty dangerous.
>
> The presence of the source inside the bdi-name is only for informational
> purposes really, so truncating that should be fine, maybe switch to:
>
> "vboxsf%d-%s" as format string and swap the sbi->bdi_id and fc->source
> in the args, then if we truncate anything it will be the source (which
> as said is only there for informational purposes) and the name will
> still be guaranteed to be unique.
Can we just switch to vboxsf%d where %d іs a simple monotonically
incrementing count? That is what various other file systems (e.g. ceph)
do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists