Message ID | 20200702165120.1469875-1-agruenba@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Fix gfs2 readahead deadlocks | expand |
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote: > > Of this patch queue, either only the first patch or all four patches can > be applied to fix gfs2's current issues in 5.8. Please let me know what > you think. I think the IOCB_NOIO flag looks fine (apart from the nit I pointed out), abnd we could do that. However, is the "revert and reinstate" looks odd. Is the reinstate so different front he original that it makes sense to do that way? Or was it done that way only to give the choice of just doing the revert? Because if so, I think I'd rather just see a "fix" rather than "revert+reinstate". But I didn't look that closely at the gfs2 code itself, maybe there's some reason you did it that way. Linus
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:11 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Of this patch queue, either only the first patch or all four patches can > > be applied to fix gfs2's current issues in 5.8. Please let me know what > > you think. > > I think the IOCB_NOIO flag looks fine (apart from the nit I pointed > out), and we could do that. Ok, that's a step forward. > However, is the "revert and reinstate" looks odd. Is the reinstate so > different from the original that it makes sense to do that way? > > Or was it done that way only to give the choice of just doing the revert? > > Because if so, I think I'd rather just see a "fix" rather than > "revert+reinstate". I only did the "revert and reinstate" so that the revert alone will give us a working gfs2 in 5.8. If there's agreement to add the IOCB_NOIO flag, then we can just fix gfs2 (basically https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200619093916.1081129-3-agruenba@redhat.com/ with IOCB_CACHED renamed to IOCB_NOIO). Thanks, Andreas