From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [Lsf] [RFC] writeback and cgroup Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:52:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20120416155207.GB15437__35775.9443148554$1334592693$gmane$org@redhat.com> References: <20120404145134.GC12676@redhat.com> <20120407080027.GA2584@quack.suse.cz> <20120410180653.GJ21801@redhat.com> <20120410210505.GE4936@quack.suse.cz> <20120410212041.GP21801@redhat.com> <20120410222425.GF4936@quack.suse.cz> <20120411154005.GD16692@redhat.com> <1334406314.2528.90.camel@twins> <20120416125432.GB12776@redhat.com> <20120416130707.GA10532@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120416130707.GA10532@localhost> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Fengguang Wu Cc: ctalbott-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, rni-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, andrea-oIIqvOZpAevzfdHfmsDf5w@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lsf-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:07:07PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: [..] > Vivek, I noticed these lines in cfq code > > sscanf(dev_name(bdi->dev), "%u:%u", &major, &minor); > > Why not use bdi->dev->devt? The problem is that dev_name() will > return "btrfs-X" for btrfs rather than "major:minor". Isn't bdi->dev->devt 0? I see following code. add_disk() bdi_register_dev() bdi_register() device_create_vargs(MKDEV(0,0)) dev->devt = devt = MKDEV(0,0); So for normal block devices, I think bdi->dev->devt will be zero, that's why probably we don't use it. Thanks Vivek