On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 05:40:56AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 09:52:51AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > The local copy can be updated in any way with any data, so does another > > concurrent update on q->limits really matter? > > Yes, because that means one of the updates get lost even if it is > for entirely separate fields. Right, but the limits are still valid anytime. Any suggestion for fixing this deadlock? One idea is to add queue_limits_start_try_update() and apply it in sysfs ->store(), in which update failure could be tolerable. Thanks, Ming
