From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756827Ab1AMNw1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:52:27 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:33352 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756785Ab1AMNwZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:52:25 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=bfA0XCEEp2R47fwrgm4MiUHqP6BaXtkv38WPTHn+CAblU/9I8EokmLha8Js4WT7Vvo 0Fhks111w5M5Wq0TP13UjhTbJnHaX2BWHnbyaoBN7bqyNwWd0v165Lqi0bc2d28AOIon RofKD5mrOx3CSGtDgkMVrwU8Uhd2KcGbgIP8Q= Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:52:10 +0100 From: Tejun Heo To: Karel Zak Cc: Milan Broz , device-mapper development , "Jun'ichi Nomura" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Kay Sievers Subject: Re: [dm-devel] linux-next - WARNING: at fs/block_dev.c:824 bd_link_disk_holder+0x92/0x1ac() Message-ID: <20110113135210.GH30719@htj.dyndns.org> References: <16069.1294853673@localhost> <4D2E4611.90002@redhat.com> <4D2E6129.8000700@ce.jp.nec.com> <20110113110640.GC30719@htj.dyndns.org> <4D2EE156.1050006@redhat.com> <20110113122701.GG16523@nb.net.home> <20110113131216.GF30719@htj.dyndns.org> <20110113132637.GH16523@nb.net.home> <20110113133722.GG30719@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110113133722.GG30719@htj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 02:37:22PM +0100, Tejun Heo wrote: > > It seems that dependencies (holders/slaves) between devices is pretty > > generic thing. Why do you think that we need claimer-specific method? > > The /sys filesystem is better that ictls in many ways. Also, one more thing. In btrfs, there's no block device for the master device. You can add the slaves directory somewhere and your choice would be as good as any other's but it just will not be generic while being superflous exactly the same way it's superflous for md and dm devices. Thanks. -- tejun