Re: [PATCH 6/7] block: async_bio_lock does not need to be bh-safe

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>, David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] block: async_bio_lock does not need to be bh-safe
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:31:59 -0600
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>, cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20230327004954.728797-7-hch@lst.de>
References: <20230327004954.728797-1-hch@lst.de> <20230327004954.728797-7-hch@lst.de>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0

On 3/26/23 6:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> async_bio_lock is only taken from bio submission and workqueue context,
> both are never in bottom halves.

Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Jens Axboe

References:
- move bio cgroup punting into btrfs
  - From: Christoph Hellwig
- [PATCH 6/7] block: async_bio_lock does not need to be bh-safe
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Prev by Date: Re: move bio cgroup punting into btrfs
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 7/7] block: make blkcg_punt_bio_submit optional
Previous by thread: [PATCH 6/7] block: async_bio_lock does not need to be bh-safe
Next by thread: Re: move bio cgroup punting into btrfs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux ARM Kernel] [Linux ARM] [Linux Omap] [Fedora ARM] [IETF Annouce] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Linux OMAP] [Linux MIPS] [eCos] [Asterisk Internet PBX] [Linux API] [Monitors]

Powered by Linux