[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59F86D13.1010708@redhat.com>
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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists