From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8022384018427959539=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [SPDK] Bdev claim and single writer semantics
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 16:45:14 +0000
Message-ID: <1525279502.1981.10.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: CANvN+ekJRDSzqEyWOSK_fMsDTnThnJf5Du8pJRzWffuPQ_GLPg@mail.gmail.com
List-ID: <spdk@lists.01.org>
To: spdk@lists.01.org

--===============8022384018427959539==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 13:40 +0000, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> So how do we move this forward? Should I submit a patch based on the below
> approach, or just remove claimed check (and, presumably, leave bdev_open
> interface as is so that the caller can still limit access to read-only if
> desired)?

My vote (and Jim's) is to remove the check in spdk_bdev_claim. Don't change=
 any
of the public APIs. If you submit a patch for this, we'll review and merge.
--===============8022384018427959539==--