From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lars Ellenberg Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:59:39 +0200 Message-ID: <20160708135939.GX13335@soda.linbit> References: <1189799501.20160708192424@pvgoran.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1189799501.20160708192424@pvgoran.name> <20160708130035.GW13335@soda.linbit> Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, "Martin K. Petersen" , Mike Snitzer , Peter Zijlstra , Jiri Kosina , Ming Lei , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zheng Liu , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Alasdair Kergon , Keith Busch , dm-devel@redhat.com, Shaohua Li , Kent Overstreet , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Roland Kammerer List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:24:24PM +0600, Pavel Goran wrote: > Friday, July 8, 2016, 7:00:35 PM, you wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:39:36PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > >> I think we just might be in violent agreement. > > > I thought so, too :-) > > > Should I merge both patches, > > rename to ".queue" and ".tmp", > > and submit for inclusion? > > Could you please *not* use ".tmp"? I have a feeling it's even worse than "X" > and "Y". :) > > I suggest to leave it as ".recursion", or maybe use something like > ".downstream". "Naming is hard" :-) .recursion and .queue, then, because .remainder does no longer fit. Also, what about "Cc: Stable"? The patch does not strictly fall into the "stable" rules, (too many lines...). But it should go there anyways, I think. I'll just add those tags, and wait for the heat? Lars Ellenberg