From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, <x86@kernel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@nvidia.com>,
Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com>,
Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
"Drew Fustini" <dfustini@baylibre.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <patches@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/resctrl: Fix deadlock for errors during mount
Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 10:47:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <afzQFkVPiNW8QR8J@agluck-desk3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5d38c1fb-8f91-472b-8897-24b2f50c772b@intel.com>
Reinette,
This looks promising.
I'll split out the missing call to mon_put_kn_priv(); into its own
patch before the deadlock fix.
Going to re-run the tests I did before forcing kernfs_get_tree()
to fail early without setting new_sb_created, and also late.
> +/*
> + * Temporary forward declaration for testing only. Move functions instead.
> + */
> +static void resctrl_unmount(void);
> +static void mon_put_kn_priv(void);
Question: How much are forward declarations hated? And how to handle
this?
Moving the functions around in the same patch really obscures the
actual change. Is it OK to have a patch to make the functional
change including the forward declarations. Then a separate commit
that does the re-order (where it is obvious that functions are
being picked up and moved without any code changes)?
-Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-07 17:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-04 22:01 [PATCH v2] fs/resctrl: Fix deadlock for errors during mount Tony Luck
2026-05-06 22:16 ` Reinette Chatre
2026-05-07 17:47 ` Luck, Tony [this message]
2026-05-07 18:30 ` Reinette Chatre
2026-05-07 23:45 ` Luck, Tony
2026-05-08 0:23 ` Reinette Chatre
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=afzQFkVPiNW8QR8J@agluck-desk3 \
--to=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dfustini@baylibre.com \
--cc=fenghuay@nvidia.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=peternewman@google.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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