Re: [dm-devel] linux-next - WARNING: at fs/block_dev.c:824 bd_link_disk_holder+0x92/0x1ac()

[Kay Sievers]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 15:30, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Milan Broz <mbroz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Maybe, but this was not invented in DM/MD camp:-)
>> Probably Kay or Greg can answer why it was done this way?

It's not from Greg or Kay. It just appeared some day in the context of dm. :)

And yes, symlinks *look* nice and simple for the outside, but they are
not, and have all sorts of problems like non-atomic updates, make it
impossible to ever rename a device (as long as they copy the device
name), and and and .... we should not add more of this.

>> If btrfs internally creates some virtual _block_ device for its pool, it should
>> present it here too with slaves/holders. If not, why it should create any links there?
>
> Yeah, that's the most bothering part for me. ÂThe biggest customers of
> bd_claim are filesystems and all these custom symlinkeries don't do
> nothing for them. ÂIt just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Btrfs does not use any blockdev as the master for good reason, and it
can never map its slaves inside of /sys/block. Simple meta-blockdevs
like md/dm just don't fit into modern requirements of a filesystem
(directory snapshots, directory subvolumes, complex raids, hassle-free
resizing, ...)  -- hence btrfs is much more like a network-filesystem
mount than a stream of blocks like a disk, and does not fit at all
into this model.

Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/