From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Bcache upstreaming Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 07:30:19 -0800 Message-ID: <20130201153019.GT6824@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20130131221711.GA13540@redhat.com> <20130131230800.GB13540@redhat.com> <20130201003311.GJ12631@moria.home.lan> <20130201033810.GA14867@redhat.com> <20130201103944.GM8837@soda.linbit> <20130201141003.GA18095@redhat.com> <20130201145504.GS6824@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130201152743.GV26407@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130201152743.GV26407-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kent Overstreet Cc: Mike Snitzer , Lars Ellenberg , dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 07:27:43AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > Kent was talking about using MD (and though he isn't opposed to DM he > > > doesn't care to integrate with DM himself). Either DM or MD would > > > implicitly enable bcache to use this interface. But in the near-term I > > > cannot see why Kent shouldn't be able to use bd_link_disk_holder too. > > > > Being part of dm or dm should make this mostly irrelevant, no? > > Yeah, but who knows when that'll actually happen and since this is for > userspace I'm just going to call it. The refcounting won't affect me, > and using it in bcache won't affect ripping that out. Yeah, I don't see any problem regarding user-visible behavior. Please go ahead. It's just gross internally and I wanted someone to do something about it before spreading its misuse (depending on the refs). Thanks. -- tejun