On Wed 12-07-23 18:06:35, Haris Iqbal wrote:

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:38 PM Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

Create struct bdev_handle that contains all parameters that need to be
passed to blkdev_put() and provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions that
return this structure instead of plain bdev pointer. This will
eventually allow us to pass one more argument to blkdev_put() without
too much hassle.

Can we use the opportunity to come up with better names?  blkdev_get_*
was always a rather horrible naming convention for something that
ends up calling into ->open.

What about:

struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_dev(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, void *holder,
                const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_path(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode,
                void *holder, const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
void bdev_release(struct bdev_handle *handle);

+1 to this.
Also, if we are removing "handle" from the function, should the name
of the structure it returns also change? Would something like bdev_ctx
be better?

I think the bdev_handle name is fine for the struct. After all it is
equivalent of an open handle for the block device so IMHO bdev_handle
captures that better than bdev_ctx.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR