Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] fs: enhance and rename shutdown() callback to remove_bdev()

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 04:05:03PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2025/7/1 15:44, Christoph Hellwig 写道:
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 03:02:34PM +0930, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > To allow those multi-device filesystems to be integrated to use
> > > fs_holder_ops:
> > > 
> > > - Rename shutdown() call back to remove_bdev()
> > >    To better describe when the call back is called.
> > 
> > What is renamed back here?
> 
> Rename the old shutdown to remove_bdev().
> 
> > 
> > > -static void exfat_shutdown(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +static void exfat_shutdown(struct super_block *sb, struct block_device *bdev)
> > >   {
> > >   	exfat_force_shutdown(sb, EXFAT_GOING_DOWN_NOSYNC);
> > >   }
> > > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static const struct super_operations exfat_sops = {
> > >   	.put_super	= exfat_put_super,
> > >   	.statfs		= exfat_statfs,
> > >   	.show_options	= exfat_show_options,
> > > -	.shutdown	= exfat_shutdown,
> > > +	.remove_bdev	= exfat_shutdown,
> > 
> > Please also rename the function so that they match the method name.
> 
> I prefer not, and it is intentionally left as is.
> 
> This give us a very clear view what a fs is expected to do.

Qu, would you please rename the individual functions?

The NAK later just because of this is unnecessary. I will say clearly
that I will ignore gratuitous NAKs that are premised on large scale
rewrites that are out of scope for the problem.

Here the requested rework has an acceptable scope though and we can
sidestep the whole problem and solve it so everyone's happy.