From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07307C433EF for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 08:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352740AbiCPIpr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2022 04:45:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34848 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237580AbiCPIpr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2022 04:45:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BA1B34BAB for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 15B2268AFE; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:44:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:44:29 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jan Kara , syzbot , axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] loop: don't hold lo->lo_mutex from lo_open() and lo_release() Message-ID: <20220316084429.GA6858@lst.de> References: <00000000000099c4ca05da07e42f@google.com> <613b094e-2b76-11b7-458b-553aafaf0df7@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20220314152318.k4cvwe737q5r5juw@quack3.lan> <20220315084458.GA3911@lst.de> <134d1b65-f7c0-b8b3-d6c9-4a5e1d807afd@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <134d1b65-f7c0-b8b3-d6c9-4a5e1d807afd@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 07:57:25PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2022/03/15 17:44, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:23:18PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > >> Honestly, the anon inode trick makes the code pretty much unreadable. As > >> far as I remember Christoph was not pricipially against using task_work. He > >> just wanted the task_work API to be improved so that it is easier to use. > > > > This whole patch is awful. And no, I don't think task_work_add really has > > any business here. We need to properly unwind the mess instead of piling > > things higher and higher. > > How do you plan to unwind the mess? Yes. I'll send another resping of the previous approach we had last time..