[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YH81n34d2G3C4Re+@gardel-login>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 22:12:15 +0200
From: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Matteo Croce <mcroce@...ux.microsoft.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Javier Gonz?lez <javier@...igon.com>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@....com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/5] block: add disk sequence number
On Di, 16.03.21 14:13, Christoph Hellwig (hch@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 08:18:24PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:02:38PM +0100, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@...rosoft.com>
> > >
> > > Add a sequence number to the disk devices. This number is put in the
> > > uevent so userspace can correlate events when a driver reuses a device,
> > > like the loop one.
> >
> > Should this be documented as monotonically increasing? I think this
> > is actually a media identifier. Consider (if you will) a floppy disc.
> > Back when such things were common, it was possible with personal computers
> > of the era to have multiple floppy discs "in play" and be prompted to
> > insert them as needed. So shouldn't it be possible to support something
> > similar here -- you're really removing the media from the loop device.
> > With a monotonically increasing number, you're always destroying the
> > media when you remove it, but in principle, it should be possible to
> > reinsert the same media and have the same media identifier number.
>
> And we have some decent infrastructure related to media changes,
> grep for disk_events. I think this needs to plug into that
> infrastructure instead of duplicating it.
I'd argue this makes sense in one way only, i.e. that whenever the
media_change event is seen the seqnum is implicitly bumped.
I am pretty sure though that loopback devices shouldn't synthesize
media_change events themselves though. There's quite a difference I
would argue between a real media change event caused by external
effect (i.e. humans/hw buttons/sensors) to loop device reuse, which is
exclusively triggered by internal events (i.e. local code). Moreover I
think the loopback subsystem should manage the seqnum on its own,
since it ideally would return the assigned seqnum immediately from the
attachment ioctl, i.e. it shouldn't just be a side-effect of
attachment, but a part of it, if you follow what I mean.
Does that make sense?
Matteo, would it make sense to extend your patch set to bump the
seqnum implicitly on media_change for devices that implement that?
Lennart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists