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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:31:15 -0400
From:   Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.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

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?