From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:26:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20080902072642.GX20055@kernel.dk> References: <20080828135245.GA12410@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080828135245.GA12410-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , Peter Osterlund , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , Kernel Testers List , viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org On Thu, Aug 28 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:40:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Peter Osterlund wrote: > > > > > > Why not just revert the offending change and try again during the next > > > merge window, assuming someone has figured out an acceptable way to > > > handle this mess by then? > > > > Well,, for 2.6.27 that's what we'll have to do. But there's actually a > > real problem here - the unlocked ioctl's (which we _should_ prefer) have a > > strictly weaker and worse interface. I also wonder if any other > > block_ioctl users were converted.. > > Actually both interfaces are a fscking disaster. The right things to > pass is neither and inode nor a file but a struct block_device. Al had > all this work done a while and it just needs rebasing to a current tree: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/viro/bdev.git;a=summary Completely agreed. Al, I remember talking to you about this at the storage summit back in february. What are your current plans wrt moving this forward? -- Jens Axboe