From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754986Ab1JSWHX (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:07:23 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:39677 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754847Ab1JSWHW (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:07:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:07:17 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] block: fix genhd refcounting in blkio_policy_parse_and_set() Message-ID: <20111019220717.GR25124@google.com> References: <1318998384-22525-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1318998384-22525-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20111019132657.GA1140@redhat.com> <20111019162902.GA25124@google.com> <20111019165932.GH1140@redhat.com> <20111019220553.GQ25124@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111019220553.GQ25124@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:05:53PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hmmm.... I don't know. If we're gonna bind rule existence to that of Heh, I meant to say, "if those two are unbound," > device, wouldn't it be better to simply not check whether the device > exists? The current behavior seems pretty confusing to me. -- tejun