From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cathy Avery Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: storvsc: Allow only one remove lun work item to be issued per lun Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:31:15 -0400 Message-ID: <59F86D13.1010708@redhat.com> References: <1508261721-24144-1-git-send-email-cavery@redhat.com> <20171019153510.GA7633@infradead.org> <20171021154444.GK1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Tejun Heo , kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2017 08:24 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>> If you use alloc_ordered_workqueue directly instead of >>> create_singlethread_workqueue you can pass a format string and don't >>> need the separate allocation. >>> >>> But I'm not sure if Tejun is fine with using __WQ_LEGACY directly.. >> The only thing that flag does is exempting the workqueue from possible >> flush deadlock check as we don't know whether WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on a >> legacy workqueue is intentional. There's no reason to add it when >> converting to alloc_ordered_workqueue(). Just decide whether it needs >> forward progress guarantee and use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM if so. > Cathy? > Sorry for the delay. Long was working on a similar problem and we needed to add a couple of extra patches. I was thinking of sending all three in series but I can send the V3 of this now and follow up with the additional patches. Does that make sense?