Re: [PATCH RESEND] btrfs: use the super_block as holder when mounting file systems

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Thu 21-09-23 14:50:07, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 02:19:45PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > 
> > The file system type is not a very useful holder as it doesn't allow us
> > to go back to the actual file system instance.  Pass the super_block
> > instead which is useful when passed back to the file system driver.
> > 
> > This matches what is done for all other block device based file systems and it
> > also fixes an issue that block device freezing (as used e.g. by LVM when
> > performing device snapshots) starts working for btrfs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > Acked-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> > Message-Id: <20230811100828.1897174-7-hch@lst.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/super.c | 7 ++-----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm resending this btrfs fix. Can you please merge it David? It's the only bit
> > remaining from the original Christoph's block device opening patches and is
> > blocking me in pushing out the opening of block devices using bdev_handle.
> > Thanks!
> 
> Thanks for resending.
> 
> Next time we will ensure that a vfs triggered conversion must go through
> a vfs tree as this half converted state with forgotten patches is not
> something that we should repeat.

Yeah, I agree it would be good to find a smoother way to handle such
merges. I understand David's desire to give changes proper testing which
generally doesn't happen in linux-next but on maintainer's own branches and
infrastructure but perhaps some stable branch in VFS tree that filesystem
maintainers could pull when putting together the branch they push out to
the testing infrastructure would work?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR