Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 00:51:36 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r322196 - head/sys/geom Message-ID: <20170807215136.GK1700@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqECJmuTaPTgqitNBDqd_33NWxDEgbaY0PgOT-UC3e_bw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201708072112.v77LCSxL001381@repo.freebsd.org> <20170807212937.GJ1700@kib.kiev.ua> <CANCZdfqECJmuTaPTgqitNBDqd_33NWxDEgbaY0PgOT-UC3e_bw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 03:37:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:12:28PM +0000, Warner Losh wrote:
> > > + LIST_FOREACH(gap, &pp->geom->aliases, ga_next) {
> > > + error = make_dev_alias_p(MAKEDEV_CHECKNAME |
> > MAKEDEV_WAITOK, &adev, dev,
> > > + "%s", gap->ga_alias);
> > > + if (error) {
> > > + printf("%s: make_dev_alias_p() failed (name=%s,
> > error=%d)\n",
> > > + __func__, gap->ga_alias, error);
> > > + continue;
> > > + }
> > > + adev->si_flags |= SI_UNMAPPED;
> > Why do you set the flag unconditionally ?
>
>
> Because it's set for "dev" unconditionally and the old compat code did it
> too...
>
> > + adev->si_iosize_max = dev->si_iosize_max;
> > > + adev->si_drv2 = dev->si_drv2;
> > And what are you trying to do by these initializations, including the
> > si_flags adjustment ?
> >
>
> The old (ad->ada) compat code set them. Though to be honest, I didn't drill
> down into the devfs code to see if that as still relevant. It sounds like
> maybe not relevant...
>
>
> > Aliases cause creation of symlinks in the devfs populate loop, which
> > makes it impossible to access the alias cdevs.
> >
>
> True enough. If so, do you think these adjustments to adev can just be
> removed entirely? A quick look in devfs code suggests that it doesn't
> matter since, as you point out, it's a symlink not a new, different node.
Yes, I think that the adev tweaks are not needed. I will be surprised
if it appears to be used, but then there might be some hole in the
devfs symlinks handling.
That said, since you mentioned ada/ad aliases, are they still in the tree ?
If yes, do you plan to convert them as well ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170807215136.GK1700>