Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 23:53:17 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        yukuai3@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] block: introduce new field bd_flags in
 block_device
Message-ID: <ZV2zbTPTZ0qC2F1U@infradead.org>
References: <20231122103103.1104589-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <20231122103103.1104589-3-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <ZV2tuLCH2cPXxQ30@infradead.org>
 <ZV2xlDgkLpPeUhHN@fedora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZV2xlDgkLpPeUhHN@fedora>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 03:45:24PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> All the existed 'bool' flags are not atomic RW, so I think it isn't
> necessary to define 'bd_flags' as 'unsigned long' for replacing them.

So because the old code wasn't correct we'll never bother?  The new
flag and the new placement certainly make this more critical as well.