Re: [PATCH] make autoclear operation synchronous again

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 07:52:34PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Instead of having to deal with sometimes present workqueues, why
> > not move the workqueue allocation to loop_add?
> 
> A bit of worrisome thing is that destroy_workqueue() can be called with
> major_names_lock held, for loop_add() may be called as probe function from
> blk_request_module(). Some unexpected dependency might bite us in future.
> 
> We can avoid destroy_workqueue() from loop_add() if we call alloc_workqueue()
> after add_disk() succeeded. But in that case calling alloc_workqueue() from
> loop_configure() (which is called without global locks like major_names_lock)
> sounds safer.

Ok.

> OK. Two patches shown below. Are these look reasonable?

They do look reasonable to me based on a quick glance, but please post
them one patch per mail in a separate thread for proper review.