linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] FAT: use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() instead of congestion

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <163936252397.22433.9103044991910658320@noble.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:28:43 +1100
From:   "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de>
To:     "OGAWA Hirofumi" <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] FAT: use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() instead of
 congestion_wait()

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> "NeilBrown" <neilb@...e.de> writes:
> 
> > congestion_wait() in this context is just a sleep - block devices do not
> > in general support congestion signalling any more.
> >
> > The goal here is to wait for any recently written data to get to
> > storage.  blkdev_issue_flush() is thought to be too expensive, so
> > replace congestion_wait() with an explicit timeout.
> 
> If just replace, the following looks better
> 
> 	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> 	io_schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> 
> Otherwise,
> 
> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>

Thanks.
According to MAINTAINERS, I should send patches for this code to you,
with the implication (I assumed) that you would forwarded them upstream
if acceptable.
But the fact that you have send mt an Acked-By seems to suggest that you
won't be doing that.
To whom should I send this patch with your acked-by?

Thanks,
NeilBrown