[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120910231326.GG7677@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:13:26 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, bharrosh@...asas.com,
david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by
stacking drivers
Hello, again.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I'm still a bit scared but think this is correct.
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> One last thing is that we may want to add @name on bioset creation so
> that we can name the workqueue properly but that's for another patch.
Yet another thing that I noticed in a different discussion.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network.drbd.devel/2130
Before this, I think bios didn't get reordered while they're traveling
down the stacked bio drivers. After this, I don't think that's true
anymore. Currently, IIRC, we don't have any ordering functionality at
bio interface, so I don't think this breaks anything but this can lead
to stupidly subtle bugs if the upper layer is making assumption on
ordering somehow. It's something which at least should be noted, I
think. Whether we want to update the code so that ordering is
maintained, I don't know. I hope not. It's already crazy complex. :(
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists