Re: remove get_super
From: David Sterba <hidden>
Date: 2023-09-14 12:03:25
Also in:
linux-btrfs, linux-fsdevel, linux-s390
On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 10:48:09AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 12-09-23 19:42:45, David Sterba wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:08:11PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:quoted
Hi all, this series against the VFS vfs.super branch finishes off the work to remove get_super and move (almost) all upcalls to use the holder ops. The first part is the missing btrfs bits so that all file systems use the super_block as holder. The second part is various block driver cleanups so that we use proper interfaces instead of raw calls to __invalidate_device and fsync_bdev. The last part than replaces __invalidate_device and fsync_bdev with upcalls to the file system through the holder ops, and finally removes get_super. It leaves user_get_super and get_active_super around. The former is not used for upcalls in the traditional sense, but for legacy UAPI that for some weird reason take a dev_t argument (ustat) or a block device path (quotactl). get_active_super is only used for calling into the file system on freeze and should get a similar treatment, but given that Darrick has changes to that code queued up already this will be handled in the next merge window. A git tree is available here: git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git remove-get_superFYI, I've added patches 2-5 as a topic branch to btrfs for-next.Hum, I don't see them there. Some glitch somewhere?
There will be a delay before the patches show up in the pushed for-next branch, some tests failed (maybe not related to this series) and there are other merge conflicts that I need to resolve first.