On 11/4/24 9:47 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 11/4/24 16:15, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/4/24 9:12 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>> When the taks that submitted a request is dying, a task work for that >>> request might get run by a kernel thread or even worse by a half >>> dismantled task. We can't just cancel the task work without running the >>> callback as the cmd might need to do some clean up, so pass a flag >>> instead. If set, it's not safe to access any task resources and the >>> callback is expected to cancel the cmd ASAP. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> Made a bit fancier to avoid conflicts. Mark, as before I'd suggest you >>> to take it and send together with the fix. >> >> That's fine, or we can just take it through the io_uring tree, it's not >> like this matters as both will land before -rc1. > > There should be a btrfs patch that depends on it and I would hope > it gets squashed into the main patchset or at least goes into the > same pull and not delayed to rc2. Right, all I'm saying is that both will land in -rc1 and it doesn't really matter. Even if it's -rc2 it's not like a potential breakage with this for certain exiting conditions is an issue. All that really matters is that the final release is fine. But like I said, I don't really care - it can go through the btrfs tree as-is, or I can take it and it'll land in -rc1. If the latter, then I'd just modify it to use io_should_terminate_tw() fro the get-go, if it goes via the btrfs tree, then we can do a separate patch for that after the fact. I just need to know what the btrfs people intend to do here, so I can plan accordingly. -- Jens Axboe
