From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
To: torvalds@transmeta.com, viro@math.psu.edu
Cc: axboe@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] change of ->bd_op->open() semantics
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 02:24:22 +0200 (MEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <UTC200205250024.g4P0OM005850.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl> (raw)
Al writes:
4) moving the call of partition-reading code into do_open() (for cases when
->bd_contains is non-NULL), killing the "set block_device fields by hand"
mess in check_partitions()
Hmm. I probably misunderstand some things.
There must be a data structure with the information that belongs
to a disk, opened or not. The size, the sectorsize, the partitions, ...
The structure that I made kdev_t point at.
What are you working towards? There is a struct block_device.
But it is not permanent. It is created when the device is opened
and disappears when it is closed.
So it doesnt help in replacing kdev_t - the permanent data must still
be somewhere. There is a struct gendisk. That is better.
It is not difficult to make sure that all devices that have array data
also get a struct gendisk.
Then there is struct request_queue. I see that it got hardsect_size,
but it seems a less suitable place for general disk info.
[So, let me repeat: Question: where do you plan to put permanent
disk data?]
Now about this partition-reading code. It requires a partitiontable type,
just like mounting requires a filesystem type. Now mount() has a
parameter that specifies the filesystem type. But open() does not
have a parameter that specifies a partitiontable type.
It seems to me that doing partitiontable reading in do_open()
is a really bad idea.
Maybe you have a "do it only once" kludge in mind?
To get something ugly, equivalent to the present situation?
Andries
next reply other threads:[~2002-05-25 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-25 0:24 Andries.Brouwer [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-24 20:12 Alexander Viro
2002-05-24 20:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-05-24 21:15 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-24 22:47 ` Alexander Viro
2002-05-24 22:17 ` Martin Dalecki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=UTC200205250024.g4P0OM005850.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl \
--to=andries.brouwer@cwi.nl \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®