[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1540244870.128590.39.camel@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 14:47:50 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"linux-nvme @ lists . infradead . org"
<linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "workqueue: re-add lockdep dependencies for
flushing"
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:14 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I must also say that I'm disappointed you'd try to do things this way.
> I'd be (have been?) willing to actually help you understand the problem
> and add the annotations, but rather than answer my question ("where do I
> find the right git tree"!) you just send a revert patch.
Sorry that I had not yet provided that information. You should have
received this information through another e-mail thread. See also
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2018-October/020493.html.
> To do that, you have to understand what recursion is valid (I'm guessing
> there's some sort of layering involved), and I'm far from understanding
> anything about the code that triggered this report.
I don't think there is any kind of recursion involved in the NVMe code
that triggered the lockdep complaint. Sagi, please correct me if I got this
wrong.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists