[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWRDeQ4K8BiYnV+X@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2023 23:21:29 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: hch@...radead.org, ming.lei@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
roger.pau@...rix.com, colyli@...e.de, kent.overstreet@...il.com,
joern@...ybastard.org, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at,
vigneshr@...com, sth@...ux.ibm.com, hoeppner@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, clm@...com,
josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
brauner@...nel.org, nico@...xnic.net, xiang@...nel.org,
chao@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
agruenba@...hat.com, jack@...e.com, konishi.ryusuke@...il.com,
dchinner@...hat.com, linux@...ssschuh.net, min15.li@...sung.com,
yukuai3@...wei.com, dlemoal@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hare@...e.de, p.raghav@...sung.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
gfs2@...ts.linux.dev, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-next v2 01/16] block: add a new helper to get
inode from block_device
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:21:01PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> block_devcie is allocated from bdev_alloc() by bdev_alloc_inode(), and
> currently block_device contains a pointer that point to the address of
> inode, while such inode is allocated together:
This is going the wrong way. Nothing outside of core block layer code
should ever directly use the bdev inode. We've been rather sloppy
and added a lot of direct reference to it, but they really need to
go away and be replaced with well defined high level operation on
struct block_device. Once that is done we can remove the bd_inode
pointer, but replacing it with something that pokes even more deeply
into bdev internals is a bad idea.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists