Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 11:56:24 -0500
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: remove bio_devname
Message-ID: <YiY5OLhi1WMFUgGH@redhat.com>
References: <20220304180105.409765-1-hch@lst.de>
 <164666057398.15541.7415780807920631127.b4-ty@kernel.dk>
 <YiY2wUVIz3NXIjlc@redhat.com>
 <20220307164814.GA12591@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220307164814.GA12591@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 07 2022 at 11:48P -0500,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:45:53AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Should those go through block too? Or is there no plan to remove
> > bdevname()?
> 
> My preference would be:  do the full bio_devname removal through Jens'
> tree and you keep the bvdevname removal.  I hope bdevname will go away
> as well, but certainly not in this merge window.

OK, sounds good. Thanks