Re: [PATCH v3] bcache: avoid holding bch_register_lock across cache_set recovery

[Jing Wu <realwujing@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 07:35:23PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 04:49:07PM +0800, Jing Wu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 04:25:23PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 10:08:59PM +0800, Qiliang Yuan wrote:
> > > > Large-scale bcache device registration and concurrent sysfs access can
> > > > hang unrelated tasks for a long time, e.g.:
> > > >
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Co-developed-by: Qiliang Yuan <yuanql9@chinatelecom.cn>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Qiliang Yuan <yuanql9@chinatelecom.cn>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jing Wu <realwujing@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > I just realize this patch was sent out by Qiliang Yuan, but the
> > > email address is from realwujing@gmail.com which owned by Jing Wu.
> > >
> > > How and why does this happen?
> > 
> > Jing Wu and Qiliang Yuan are on the same team. The git send-email
> > configuration was mixed up when preparing this submission, and the
> > patch ended up going out under the wrong author address. Apologies
> > for the confusion.
> > 
> > The solution itself is the result of team collaboration: both of
> > us worked on the analysis, design, implementation and testing, so
> > both Signed-off-bys are correct and intentional.
> > 
> 
> It seems all patches authored by Qiliang Yuan used realwujing@gmail.com
> as the email address, even your name didn't show up in the patches.
> Since you and Qiliang are in same team, why you didn't use
> chinatelecom.cn email address in your SOB ?
> 
> This is not a common situation, so I need to make it clear for the
> supply chain security reason.

The chinatelecom.cn domain is China Telecom's corporate email. It
has strict anti-spam policies, and emails from that domain are
frequently rejected or bounced by upstream mail servers due to the
high volume of phishing emails originating from Chinese IP ranges.
We have had cases where maintainers tried to reply to our
chinatelecom.cn addresses and the messages were silently dropped,
which is obviously not ideal for kernel development.

That's why we use Gmail for kernel submissions — it's simply more
reliable for getting patches delivered and receiving replies. We'll
make sure the author identity and SoB chain are correct in future
submissions. Thanks for your patience.

Thanks,
Jing