From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net (004.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544C21DF98F; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753899043; cv=none; b=J9iqRBq/eKvI68QhuV1CCiIq1cMC3nNzMvlb91dXF1ZPwQjz5A54qPWswqpeBy36gohrWb/9WCzNA1dL7JxWxd6DASKxQfNWkXHsbv9naPpFhHaqyEERTODpKLQEZ72U31kMj1dBaTYwzuyXpjZHc/YOYqktA0zQTmr3lvSlznM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753899043; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lCk0vwDNFmJ0RsVYQ+rLHlwtUTBY3kSZuRjSXYAlmkY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nzgheY+78nlLja7HsLMNRu7o/umO4+ooXblaSV/YbdI8FfqSm0JuVpoAq6wGDDn8avmHXOWd9Pbg5BxWzTqMy509Wcob/Xp1GWrWWRxsVjWNm2SpB5eyRMRWGBsxZJpLaJAsO3jFV0HCD6LvEYc3gzoteDuspYrwIrzYk1FfsYM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=QUz2Qwop; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="QUz2Qwop" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bsgHh1szmzm0yQd; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:10:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1753899037; x=1756491038; bh=Zpjz4pPSStNS5tw5fFT7ZAbJ XfEgP/hudW65uYZt/AU=; b=QUz2QwopZssNgFrgBexce/nuNQwoyFZzlLGiAoHZ HLRnONO22jheUC+MqXNVj+6taMxV9dhZ/pGwk4veKM9oC4bTxII8b6+bFqT/RWm8 qWXg6G9sLZc1mDccCW5tIpmibu2hvd4hb8bYp5U4cGdZaZaLmg/DxJtn0YAt1PnR ozBiHl6r7tzeRWuT5+dmKqhot1QGL1IllSu+M/AgV1zVRFhjo9HMT+yQ56hkzOqt Y+mJi1kkYEvjIWoBW5/TuvM58iulvhOxlm27qV1ggfAfCTN7xsLtwShUHiHpcAKA O6YqxeUUoj8AYzNwXaziSQn8fdxrSiLubxlqv1MIXAI2xg== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (004.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id QJ_N9-q0RLPk; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:10:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bsgHP2lDmzm0c2T; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <06f98711-7c09-4544-b832-b2a931907de8@acm.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 11:10:23 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mq-deadline: switch to use elevator lock To: yukuai@kernel.org, Yu Kuai , dlemoal@kernel.org, hare@suse.de, jack@suse.cz, tj@kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk, yukuai3@huawei.com Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, johnny.chenyi@huawei.com References: <20250730082207.4031744-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <20250730082207.4031744-3-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/30/25 11:01 AM, Yu Kuai wrote: > Ok, you mean that the lock is moved to the caller is functional change, > right? That's something one could argue about. But I think there is agreement that each patch should only include one logical change. Thanks, Bart.