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: <Z_ynTcEZGhPKm5wY@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 23:12:29 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Yunlong Xing <yunlong.xing@...soc.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, 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 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?

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>