On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 16:21 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:

On 6/23/21 4:07 PM, Luca Boccassi wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 16:01 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:

quoted

On 6/23/21 3:51 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

quoted

On Mi, 23.06.21 15:10, Matteo Croce (mcroce@linux.microsoft.com) wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 1:49 PM Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 12:58:53PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:

quoted

+void inc_diskseq(struct gendisk *disk)
+{
+     static atomic64_t diskseq;

Please don't hide file scope variables in functions.

I just didn't want to clobber that file namespace, as that is the only
point where it's used.

quoted

Can you explain a little more why we need a global sequence count vs
a per-disk one here?

The point of the whole series is to have an unique sequence number for
all the disks.
Events can arrive to the userspace delayed or out-of-order, so this
helps to correlate events to the disk.
It might seem strange, but there isn't a way to do this yet, so I come
up with a global, monotonically incrementing number.

To extend on this and given an example why the *global* sequence number
matters:

Consider you plug in a USB storage key, and it gets named
/dev/sda. You unplug it, the kernel structures for that device all
disappear. Then you plug in a different USB storage key, and since
it's the only one it will too be called /dev/sda.

With the global sequence number we can still distinguish these two
devices even though otherwise they can look pretty much identical. If
we had per-device counters then this would fall flat because the
counter would be flushed out when the device disappears and when a device
reappears under the same generic name we couldn't assign it a
different sequence number than before.

Thus: a global instead of local sequence number counter is absolutely
*key* for the problem this is supposed to solve

Well ... except that you'll need to keep track of the numbers (otherwise
you wouldn't know if the numbers changed, right?).
And if you keep track of the numbers you probably will have to implement
an uevent listener to get the events in time.
But if you have an uevent listener you will also get the add/remove
events for these devices.
And if you get add and remove events you can as well implement sequence
numbers in your application, seeing that you have all information
allowing you to do so.
So why burden the kernel with it?

Cheers,

Hannes

Hi,

We need this so that we can reliably correlate events to instances of a
device. Events alone cannot solve this problem, because events _are_
the problem.

In which sense?
Yes, events can be delayed (if you list to uevents), but if you listen 
to kernel events there shouldn't be a delay, right?

Cheers,

Hannes

Hi,

Userspace programs don't have exclusive usage rights on loopdev, so you
can't reliably know if an uevent correlates to the loop0 you just
added, or to the loop0 someone else added some time earlier. This
series lets us do just that, reliably, without races, and fix long-
standing bugs. Please see Lennart's reply, it has much more details.
Thanks!

-- 
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi