Re: [PATCH 01/32] block: Provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions

[Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>]

On Wed 12-07-23 18:06:35, Haris Iqbal wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:38 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:21:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Create struct bdev_handle that contains all parameters that need to be
> > > passed to blkdev_put() and provide blkdev_get_handle_* functions that
> > > return this structure instead of plain bdev pointer. This will
> > > eventually allow us to pass one more argument to blkdev_put() without
> > > too much hassle.
> >
> > Can we use the opportunity to come up with better names?  blkdev_get_*
> > was always a rather horrible naming convention for something that
> > ends up calling into ->open.
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_dev(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode, void 
> > *holder,
> >                 const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
> > struct bdev_handle *bdev_open_by_path(dev_t dev, blk_mode_t mode,
> >                 void *holder, const struct blk_holder_ops *hops);
> > void bdev_release(struct bdev_handle *handle);
> 
> +1 to this.
> Also, if we are removing "handle" from the function, should the name
> of the structure it returns also change? Would something like bdev_ctx
> be better?

I think the bdev_handle name is fine for the struct. After all it is
equivalent of an open handle for the block device so IMHO bdev_handle
captures that better than bdev_ctx.

                                                                Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR