Re: use case for register_pstore_blk?

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:37:15AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looking at this more:  in addition to the block code being totally
> broken, there is really no point in mtdpstore even using this code.
> It does nothing but minimal parameter validation to just pass it
> on to the pstore zone interface.  IMHO writing the mtd code directly
> to the zone interface makes a whole lot more sense even if we grow
> a non-broken block backend at some point.  Something like this:

I really don't like this, sorry. I'm using the pstore/blk bits myself
already, and I don't want that removed. Additionally I really don't want
the structures open-coded in the MTD driver. The whole point was to
encapsulate it. I've spent a lot of time clawing pstore back from the
brink of open-coded argument and member explosion. :)

I'm fine to drop the exported register_pstore_blk() API until someone
actually uses it, but I want to keep pstore/blk itself and the existing
separation between pstore backing devices and pstore storage logic so
that configuration happens at the storage level, not the backing device
level. My intent, for example, is to migrate ramoops to pstore/zone,
etc, and remove all the ramoops-specific configuration which is common
to pstore/zone.

-- 
Kees Cook