[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ac58106-d7f5-fda2-2695-c68b5072f696@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:08:17 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: Fix false positive lockdep warning with
sb_internal & fs_reclaim
On 6/19/20 9:21 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I find it really confusing that we record this in current->flags.
> per-thread state makes total sense for not dipping into fs reclaim.
> But for annotating something related to memory allocation passing flags
> seems a lot more descriptive to me, as it is about particular locks.
>
I am dropping this patchset as just using PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS is good enough.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists