lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Remove un-needed 'major' registration when alloc_disk(0) is used.
On Tue, Mar 15 2016, Ross Zwisler wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 08:59:28AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> When alloc_disk(0) is used, the ->major number is ignored and
>> irrelevant. Yet several drivers register a major number anyway.
>>
>> This series of patches removes the pointless registrations. The pmem
>> driver also does this, but a patch has already been sent for that
>> driver.
>>
>> Note that I am not in a position to test these beyond simple compile
>> testing.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> NeilBrown
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> NeilBrown (4):
>> nvdimm/blk: don't allocate unused major device number
>> nvdimm/btt: don't allocate unused major device number
>> memstick: don't allocate unused major for ms_block
>> NVMe: don't allocate unused nvme_major
>>
>>
>> drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c | 17 ++---------------
>> drivers/nvdimm/blk.c | 18 +-----------------
>> drivers/nvdimm/btt.c | 19 ++-----------------
>> drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 16 +---------------
>> 4 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
>
> There are several other drivers that allocate a major, but then use it for
> some small number of minors (1 for null_blk.c and 16 for virtio_blk.c). They
> both have GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT set, so I think what happens is that after we
> exhaust the allocated minors they hop over to having BLOCK_EXT_MAJOR as a
> major and a dynamically assigned minor.

null_blk looks like it would be safe to convert - it is just used for
testing. Jens Axboe would probably know for sure.

virtio_blk is a much older and there may will be code which has some
sort of expectations about minor numbers. I think it would not be worth
the risks to change it.

>
> It seems like these could easily be converted in the same way so they'd use
> BLOCK_EXT_MAJOR for their major and have a bunch of dynamically assigned
> minors.
>
> Does this break something I'm not seeing?
>
> Yay for this series, by the way. :)

Thanks... two are in -next now (thank Dan) - I might poke the other two
in a week or two if nothing happens.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-15 23:21    [W:0.107 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site