linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: storvsc: Allow only one remove lun work item to be issued per lun

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:24:44 -0400
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
        devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] scsi: storvsc: Allow only one remove lun work item to be issued per lun


>> 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?

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering