> This is how I understand it:
>
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -996,6 +996,7 @@ static void loop_queue_work(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_cmd *cmd)
> rb_insert_color(&worker->rb_node, &lo->worker_tree);
> queue_work:
> if (worker) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(worker->blkcg_css != cmd->blkcg_css);
Yes, this is correct. Though the check here seems a bit obvious to me
- it must be correct because we assign worker above:
if (cur_worker->blkcg_css == cmd->blkcg_css) {
worker = cur_worker;
break;
or when we construct the worker:
worker->blkcg_css = cmd->blkcg_css;
I think this WARN_ON_ONCE check might be more interesting in
loop_process_work which invokes loop_handle_cmd and actually uses
cmd->blkcg_css. In any event, your understanding is correct here.
> /*
> * We need to remove from the idle list here while
> * holding the lock so that the idle timer doesn't
> @@ -2106,6 +2107,8 @@ static blk_status_t loop_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> cmd->memcg_css = NULL;
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP
> if (rq->bio && rq->bio->bi_blkg) {
> + /* reference to blkcg_css will be held by loop_worker (outlives
> + * cmd) or it is the eternal root css */
Yes, this is correct. Feel free to add my Acked-by to such a patch
