Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:51:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:50:59 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:63362 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:50:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:51:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Christoph Hellwig cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: bug? in using generic read/write functions to read/write block devices in 2.4.11-pre2 In-Reply-To: <200110032156.f93LuJb01378@ns.caldera.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Al, > > In article you wrote: > > Moreover, ->release() for block_device also doesn't care for the junk > > we pass - it only uses inode->i_rdev. In all cases. And I'd rather > > see it them as > > int (*open)(struct block_device *bdev, int flags, int mode); > > int (*release)(struct block_device *bdev); > > int (*check_media_change)(struct block_device *bdev); > > int (*revalidate)(struct block_device *bdev); > > - that would make more sense than the current variant. They are block_device > > methods, not file or inode ones, after all. > > How about starting 2.5 with that patch ones 2.4.11 is done? Linus? I don't think that it's a good idea. Such patch is trivial - it can be done at any point in 2.5. Moreover, while it does clean some of the mess up, I don't see a lot of other stuff that would depend on it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/