[PATCH 3/8] blk: blkmap: Add basic infrastructure

[Simon Glass]

Hi Tobias,

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 01:30, Tobias Waldekranz <tobias at waldekranz.com> wrote:
>
> On fre, feb 03, 2023 at 17:20, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Hi Tobias,
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 at 02:38, Tobias Waldekranz <tobias at waldekranz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On ons, feb 01, 2023 at 13:20, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > Hi Tobias,
> >>
> >> Hi Simon,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the review!
> >>
> >> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 11:10, Tobias Waldekranz <tobias at waldekranz.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> blkmaps are loosely modeled on Linux's device mapper subsystem. The
> >> >> basic idea is that you can create virtual block devices whose blocks
> >> >> can be backed by a plethora of sources that are user configurable.
> >> >>
> >> >> This change just adds the basic infrastructure for creating and
> >> >> removing blkmap devices. Subsequent changes will extend this to add
> >> >> support for actual mappings.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias at waldekranz.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  MAINTAINERS                      |   6 +
> >> >>  disk/part.c                      |   1 +
> >> >>  drivers/block/Kconfig            |  18 ++
> >> >>  drivers/block/Makefile           |   1 +
> >> >>  drivers/block/blk-uclass.c       |   1 +
> >> >>  drivers/block/blkmap.c           | 275 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >>  include/blkmap.h                 |  15 ++
> >> >>  include/dm/uclass-id.h           |   1 +
> >> >>  include/efi_loader.h             |   4 +
> >> >>  lib/efi_loader/efi_device_path.c |  30 ++++
> >> >>  10 files changed, 352 insertions(+)
> >> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/block/blkmap.c
> >> >>  create mode 100644 include/blkmap.h
> >> >>
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> > This needs to be created as part of DM.  See how host_create_device()
> >> > works. It attaches something to the uclass and then creates child
> >> > devices from there. It also operations (struct host_ops) but you don't
> >> > need to do that.
> >> >
> >> > Note that the host commands support either an label or a devnum, which
> >> > I think is useful, so you might copy that?
> >> >
> >>
> >> I took a look at the hostfs implementation. I agree that labels are much
> >> nicer than bare integers. However, for block maps the idea is to fit in
> >> to the existing filesystem infrastructure. Addressing block devices
> >> using the "<interface> <dev>[:<part>]" pattern seems very well
> >> established...
> >
> > You can still do that, so long as the labels are "0" and "1", etc. But
> > it lets us move to a more flexible system in future.
> >
> >>
> >> >> +{
> >> >> +       static struct udevice *dev;
> >> >> +       int err;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +       if (dev)
> >> >> +               return dev;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +       err = device_bind_driver(dm_root(), "blkmap_root", "blkmap", &dev);
> >> >> +       if (err)
> >> >> +               return NULL;
> >> >> +
> >> >> +       err = device_probe(dev);
> >> >> +       if (err) {
> >> >> +               device_unbind(dev);
> >> >> +               return NULL;
> >> >> +       }
> >> >
> >> > Should not be needed as probing children will cause this to be probed.
> >> >
> >> > So this function just becomes
> >> >
> >> > uclass_first_device(UCLASS_BLKDEV, &
> >> >
> >> >> +
> >> >> +       return dev;
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> +int blkmap_create(int devnum)
> >> >
> >> > Again, please drop the use of devnum and use devices. Here you could
> >> > use a label, perhaps?
> >>
> >> ...which is why I don't think a label is going to fly here. Let's say I
> >> create a new ramdisk with a label instead, e.g.:
> >>
> >>     blkmap create rd
> >>     blkmap map rd 0 0x100 mem ${loadaddr}
> >>
> >> How do I know which <dev> to supply to, e.g.:
> >>
> >>     ls blkmap <dev> /boot
> >>
> >> It seems like labels are a hostfs-specific feature, or am I missing
> >> something?
> >
> > We have the same problem with hostfs, since we have not implemented
> > labels in block devices. For now you must use integer labels. But we
> > will get there.
>
> But there is no connection to the devnum that is allocated internally by
> U-Boot. Here's an experiment I just ran:
>
> I created two squashfs images containing a single directory:
>
>     zero.squashfs:
>      i_am_zero
>
>     one.squashfs:
>      i_am_one
>
> Then I added a binding to them:
>
>     => host bind 1 one.squashfs
>     => host bind 0 zero.squashfs
>
> When accessing them, we see that the existing filesystem utilities work
> on the internally generated devnums, ignoring the labels:
>
>     => ls host 1
>                 i_am_zero/
>
>     0 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
>     => ls host 0
>                 i_am_one/
>
>     0 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
>     =>
>
> Doesn't it therefore make more sense to stick with the established
> abstraction?

It is pretty clear that this is a bit silly though :-)

I mean, right now, it would be easier to stick with numbered devices.
But we want to be able to support named devices (e.g. using struct
udevice->name). A good way to be forward compatible is to support a
label today.

When we do get to it, the less code that has piled up and needs
converting, the more likely it is to happen.

Sure, you have the problem as above, but mostly people are only going
to use one of them, so it doesn't matter.

We could also have a way of obtaining a number from a label, if you
want to go that far. But I suggest just telling people to use labels
like "1" and "0" which should work.

[.]

Regards,
SImon