From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmem: don't allocate unused major device number
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:24:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jRR-27wFYjQepwbug-csUmqbaSaPEu0PvMCthhaZNMnA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k2lclif1.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>
> When alloc_disk(0) or alloc_disk-node(0, XX) is used, the ->major
> number is completely ignored: all devices are allocated with a
> major of BLOCK_EXT_MAJOR.
>
> So there is no point allocating pmem_major.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/nvdimm/pmem.c | 19 +------------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> Hi Dan et al,
> I was recently educating myself about the behavior of alloc_disk(0).
> As I understand it, the ->major is ignored and all device numbers for all
> partitions (including '0') are allocated on demand with major number of
> BLOCK_EXT_MAJOR.
>
> So I was a little surprised to find that pmem.c allocated a major
> number which is never used - historical anomaly I suspect.
> I was a bit more surprised at the comment in:
>
> Commit: 9f53f9fa4ad1 ("libnvdimm, pmem: add libnvdimm support to the pmem driver")
>
> "The minor numbers are also more predictable by passing 0 to alloc_disk()."
>
> How can they possibly be more predictable given that they are allocated
> on-demand? Maybe discovery order is very predictable???
>
> In any case, I propose this patch but cannot test it (beyond compiling)
> as I don't have relevant hardware. And maybe some user-space code greps
> /proc/devices for "pmem" to determine if "pmem" is compiled in (though
> I sincerely hope not).
> So I cannot be certain that this patch won't break anything, but am
> hoping that if you like it you might test it.
>
> If it does prove acceptable, then similar changes would be appropriate
> for btt.c and blk.c. And drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c and
> drivers/nvme/host/core.c. (gotta stamp out this cargo cult)
This is passing my tests. Are you going to send these follow-ups as well?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-09 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-08 22:21 [PATCH] pmem: don't allocate unused major device number NeilBrown
2016-03-08 22:29 ` Dan Williams
2016-03-09 18:57 ` Ross Zwisler
2016-03-09 19:24 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2016-03-20 10:24 ` Boaz Harrosh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPcyv4jRR-27wFYjQepwbug-csUmqbaSaPEu0PvMCthhaZNMnA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).