From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-173.mta0.migadu.com (out-173.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.173]) (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 0B07979C4 for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2024 01:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728091632; cv=none; b=GF/JCq9uJxzIElmwXDh+LcnFRo/QFLyxGtVOIx3nr8QiGUmVMI2MzGPINu2Agid5p1N3SBISg0PqzUOpEN0rWXSqMOe131FJ1PyxtXgU2Zc7AyJDV7gXAVU/LQR+Ilp7xVz9hHu0nZ5dZwUhDqzMk2HEbBX0uQYhuUXVKW3KtkM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728091632; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RZs2r+0Guaoz3xT1NSlzUotwj68Jj3jWXP6nM6TGbTc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=dYbTNGaqSDGhAN+l4z6kBxEOcMEpiMxjspvJsiviUokfOlel8ecASa4geqZkoptXCHictikvLrlozqDjQKffl6pQ42EPYnV/PUiPfOVLh7wPFX5StK9hyq4lj0KVIHkE/17XiSOmlpsl++ghn8B9j/jsC2HkqidReGMKP0FBKOo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=caXVk7ho; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="caXVk7ho" Message-ID: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1728091628; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2VC8qI0q43BjF9ZEaHIPqDkde6qxIB0LzkBDmmyVc2c=; b=caXVk7holI5r3PJjd9jKsM7ObMBgv6mEhFphPcPLVJQYorAQFMHyw7eehDowCjNuIumOe+ rHF3uTT9M3sNDnPOD2OYe6r9zVinJ3bJmZ5Ln78QAba/dy88vevt0JVKDYmDhsWr05UwrL VH/7reVf3BHTne6xZSDpvbCSq9Yc5ns= Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 09:26:56 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: blktests failures with v6.12-rc1 kernel To: Bart Van Assche , Shinichiro Kawasaki Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "nbd@other.debian.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" References: <5cff6598-21f3-4e85-9a06-f3a28380585b@linux.dev> <9fe72efb-46b8-4a72-b29c-c60a8c64f88c@acm.org> X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Zhu Yanjun In-Reply-To: <9fe72efb-46b8-4a72-b29c-c60a8c64f88c@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT 在 2024/10/5 0:31, Bart Van Assche 写道: > On 10/4/24 5:40 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote: >> So I add a jiffies (u64) value into the name. > > I don't think that embedding the value of the jiffies counter in the > kmem cache names is sufficient to make cache names unique. That sounds > like a fragile approach to me. Sorry. I can not get you. Why jiffies counter is not sufficient to make cache names unique? And why is it a fragile approach? Can you share your advice with us? I read your latest commit. In your commit, the ida is used to make cache names unique. It is a good approach if it can fix this problem. The approach of jiffies seems clumsy. But it seems to be able to fix this problem, too. I can not see any risks about this jiffies appraoch. Zhu Yanjun > > Bart. -- Best Regards, Yanjun.Zhu