[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3969cc50-eef7-0b39-58eb-a19535a61d15@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 17:36:09 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
ming.lei@...hat.com, nstange@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] block: revert back to synchronous request_queue
removal
On 2020-05-08 20:10, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> We revert back to synchronous request_queue removal because asynchronous
> removal creates a regression with expected userspace interaction with
> several drivers. An example is when removing the loopback driver, one
> uses ioctls from userspace to do so, but upon return and if successful,
> one expects the device to be removed. Likewise if one races to add another
> device the new one may not be added as it is still being removed. This was
> expected behavior before and it now fails as the device is still present
> and busy still. Moving to asynchronous request_queue removal could have
> broken many scripts which relied on the removal to have been completed if
> there was no error. Document this expectation as well so that this
> doesn't regress userspace again.
Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists