[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210315120608.GA30489@veeam.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 15:06:08 +0300
From: Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@...am.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Tide <Pavel.TIde@...am.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] block: add blk_mq_is_queue_frozen()
The 03/14/2021 12:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:06:41PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > This is returning a frozen state that is immediately stale. I don't
> > think any code calling this is providing the guarantees you think it
> > does due to the racey nature of this state once the mutex is dropped.
>
> The code only uses it for asserts in the form of WARN_ONs.
But perhaps it is possible to come up with a more elegant solution?
I'll think about it.
--
Sergei Shtepa
Veeam Software developer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists