linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] loop: aio inherit the ioprio of original request

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <e0dc38e8-9df0-40e3-a0e3-fd4b40b3fd80@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:47:51 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
 Yunlong Xing <yunlong.xing@...soc.com>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, bvanassche@....org, niuzhiguo84@...il.com,
 yunlongxing23@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 hao_hao.wang@...soc.com, zhiguo.niu@...soc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] loop: aio inherit the ioprio of original request

On 4/14/25 12:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:01:59AM +0800, Yunlong Xing wrote:
>> Set cmd->iocb.ki_ioprio to the ioprio of loop device's request.
>> The purpose is to inherit the original request ioprio in the aio
>> flow.
> 
> This looks good, but has a mechanical conflict with my
> "loop: stop using vfs_iter_{read,write} for buffered I/O" patch
> that fixes setting the block size for direct I/O.
> 
> Jens, any preference how we should order the patches?  Should I resend
> on top of this smaller one or the other way around?

I think we layer yours on top of this one, which is something I
can just do without much trouble. Do we want the vfs_iter removal
in 6.15 or is 6.16 fine for that?

-- 
Jens Axboe