Hey, Jan,
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:40:44PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > I don't think this is necessary now that the bdev and inode lifetimes are
> > one. Before, punching out the association early was necessary because we
> > could be in a situation where we can successfully look up a part from i
Hello!
On Tue 24-11-20 11:59:49, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > diff --git a/block/partitions/core.c b/block/partitions/core.c
> > index a02e224115943d..0ba0bf44b88af3 100644
> > --- a/block/partitions/core.c
> > +++ b/block/partitions/core.c
> > @@ -340,12 +340,11 @@ void delete_partition(struct hd_struc
Hello,
This is great. So much simpler & better. Some nits below.
> diff --git a/block/partitions/core.c b/block/partitions/core.c
> index a02e224115943d..0ba0bf44b88af3 100644
> --- a/block/partitions/core.c
> +++ b/block/partitions/core.c
> @@ -340,12 +340,11 @@ void delete_partition(struct hd_s
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > rcu_assign_pointer(ptbl->part[0], &disk->part0);
> > @@ -1772,8 +1626,10 @@ struct gendisk *__alloc_disk_node(int minors, int
> > node_id)
> > * converted to make use of bd_mutex and sequence counters.
> > */
> > hd_se
On Wed 18-11-20 09:47:51, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> To simplify block device lookup and a few other upcomdin areas, make sure
> that we always have a struct block_device available for each disk and
> each partition. The only downside of this is that each device and
> partition uses a little more
To simplify block device lookup and a few other upcomdin areas, make sure
that we always have a struct block_device available for each disk and
each partition. The only downside of this is that each device and
partition uses a little more memories. The upside will be that a lot of
code can be sim
