[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YWkioFQrfKAL8PvR@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 23:41:36 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@...itsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
jane.chu@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/8] xfs: Implement ->notify_failure() for XFS
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:09:58PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> +void fs_dax_register_holder(struct dax_device *dax_dev, void *holder,
> + const struct dax_holder_operations *ops)
> +{
> + dax_set_holder(dax_dev, holder, ops);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_dax_register_holder);
> +
> +void fs_dax_unregister_holder(struct dax_device *dax_dev)
> +{
> + dax_set_holder(dax_dev, NULL, NULL);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_dax_unregister_holder);
> +
> +void *fs_dax_get_holder(struct dax_device *dax_dev)
> +{
> + return dax_get_holder(dax_dev);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_dax_get_holder);
These should not be in a XFS patch. But why do we even need this
wrappers?
> @@ -377,6 +385,8 @@ xfs_close_devices(
>
> xfs_free_buftarg(mp->m_logdev_targp);
> xfs_blkdev_put(logdev);
> + if (dax_logdev)
> + fs_dax_unregister_holder(dax_logdev);
> fs_put_dax(dax_logdev);
I'd prefer to include the fs_dax_unregister_holder in the fs_put_dax
call to avoid callers failing to unregister it.
> @@ -411,6 +425,9 @@ xfs_open_devices(
> struct block_device *logdev = NULL, *rtdev = NULL;
> int error;
>
> + if (dax_ddev)
> + fs_dax_register_holder(dax_ddev, mp,
> + &xfs_dax_holder_operations);
I'd include the holder registration with fs_dax_get_by_bdev as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists