[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210216093044.GA24615@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 10:30:44 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
David Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/33] netfs: Use in_interrupt() not in_softirq()
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 09:29:31AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Is there a better way to do it? The intent is to process the assessment phase
> in the calling thread's context if possible rather than bumping over to a
> worker thread. For synchronous I/O, for example, that's done in the caller's
> thread. Maybe that's the answer - if it's known to be asynchronous, I have to
> punt, but otherwise don't have to.
Yes, i think you want an explicit flag instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists