[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231204161245.GA31326@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 17:12:45 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Allow a kthread to declare that it calls
task_work_run()
I am sick and can't read emails, just one note
On 12/04, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Just have the kernel threads born with ->task_works set to &work_exited
Then irq_thread()->task_work_add() will silently fail,
> and provide a primitive that would flip it from that to NULL.
OK, so this change should update irq_thread(). But what else can fail?
And what if another kthread uses task_work_add(current) to add the
desctructor and does fput() without task_work_run() ?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists