Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:08:39 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     schmitzmic@gmail.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, efremov@linux.com, song@kernel.org,
        jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hare@suse.de, jack@suse.cz,
        ming.lei@redhat.com, tj@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] last batch of add_disk() error handling
 conversions
Message-ID: <YXLwF1jit131Nb5u@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20211021163856.2000993-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <66655777-6f9b-adbc-03ff-125aecd3f509@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <66655777-6f9b-adbc-03ff-125aecd3f509@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 10:06:07AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/10/22 1:38, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > I rebased Tetsuo Handa's patch onto the latest linux-next as this
> > series depends on it, and so I am sending it part of this series as
> > without it, this won't apply. Tetsuo, does the rebase of your patch
> > look OK?
> 
> OK, though I wanted my fix to be sent to upstream and stable before this series.

Sure, absolutely, your patch is certainly separate and is needed as a
fix downstream to stable it would seem.

> > If it is not too much trouble, I'd like to ask for testing for the
> > ataflop changes from Michael Schmitz, if possible, that is he'd just
> > have to merge Tetsuo's rebased patch and the 2nd patch in this series.
> > This is all rebased on linux-next tag 20211020.
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
> After this series, I guess we can remove "bool registered[NUM_DISK_MINORS];" like below
> due to (unit[drive].disk[type] != NULL) == (unit[drive].registered[type] == true).

Sounds good.

> Regarding this series, setting unit[drive].registered[type] = true in ataflop_probe() is
> pointless because atari_floppy_cleanup() checks unit[i].disk[type] != NULL for calling
> del_gendisk().

I see, will fix.

> And we need to fix __register_blkdev() in driver/block/floppy.c because
> floppy_probe_lock is pointless.

Sure, I take it you're going to work on a patch?

So much excitement with the floppy world, who would have thought? :)

  Luis