[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200619202348.GJ11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:23:48 +0000
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: 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, mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, jejb@...ux.ibm.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 v6 3/6] block: revert back to synchronous request_queue
removal
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 06:53:40PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-06-08 10:01, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > + * Drivers exist which depend on the release of the request_queue to be
> > + * synchronous, it should not be deferred.
>
> This sounds mysterious. Which drivers? Why do these depend on this
> function being synchronous?
Sorry that should be "Userspace can exist". I've fixed that.
> Anyway:
>
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists