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 17:23:07 +0900 |
| |
On 1/3/2018 5:10 PM, Byungchul Park wrote: > 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.
What if we adopt the (4) in which waiters are validated one by one and no explicit invalidation is involved?
>> ERROR("LOCKDEP", "lockdep_no_validate class is reserved for >> device->mutex.\n" . $herecurr); >> >> - Ted >> >
-- Thanks, Byungchul
| |