Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo | From | Byungchul Park <> | Date | Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:10:52 +0900 |
| |
On 1/3/2018 4:05 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:10:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: >>> The point I was trying to drive home is that "all we have to do is >>> just classify everything well or just invalidate the right lock >> >> Just to be sure, we don't have to invalidate lock objects at all but >> a problematic waiter only. > > So essentially you are proposing that we have to play "whack-a-mole" > as we find false positives, and where we may have to put in ad-hoc > plumbing to only invalidate "a problematic waiter" when it's > problematic --- or to entirely suppress the problematic waiter
If we have too many problematic completions(waiters) to handle it, then I agree with you. But so far, only one exits and it seems able to be handled even in the future on my own.
Or if you believe that we have a lot of those kind of completions making trouble so we cannot handle it, the (4) by Amir would work, no? I'm asking because I'm really curious about your opinion..
> altogether. And in that case, a file system developer might be forced > to invalidate a lock/"waiter"/"completion" in another subsystem.
As I said, with regard to the invalidation, we don't have to consider locks at all. It's enough to invalidate the waiter only.
> I will also remind you that doing this will trigger a checkpatch.pl > *error*:
This is what we decided. And I think the decision is reasonable for original lockdep. But I wonder if we should apply the same decision on waiters. I don't insist but just wonder.
> ERROR("LOCKDEP", "lockdep_no_validate class is reserved for device->mutex.\n" . $herecurr); > > - Ted >
-- Thanks, Byungchul
| |