From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make autoclear operation synchronous again
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:33:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220103083303.GA28831@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4e7b711f-744b-3a78-39be-c9432a3cecd2@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-03 8:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-26 7:06 [PATCH] make autoclear operation synchronous again Tetsuo Handa
2021-12-29 17:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-12-30 10:52 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-01-03 8:33 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2022-01-05 6:02 ` Jan Stancek
2022-01-05 6:10 ` Tetsuo Handa
2022-01-20 8:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220103083303.GA28831@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \
--cc=schatzberg.dan@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).