[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1840692.1646863738@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 22:08:58 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
David Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/19] netfs: Add a function to consolidate beginning a read
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> > + rreq->work.func = netfs_rreq_work;
> > +
>
> ^^^
> This seems like it should be an INIT_WORK call. I assume you're moving
> this here this because you intend to use netfs_alloc_request for writes
> too?
Interesting question. INIT_WORK() was called in netfs_alloc_request(), so the
lockdep state has already been initialised and may even have been used already
(say, for instance, we do an RMW cycle buffering in the same request struct).
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists