On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:40:33AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:32:42PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:22:36PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > After this, you want me to get rid of kobj_map, right? Or you don't > > > care as block doesn't use it anymore? :) > > > > I have a patch to kill it, but it causes odd regressions with the > > tpm driver according to the kernel test. As I have grand plans that > > build on the block ѕide of this series for 5.11, I plan to defer the > > chardev side and address it for 5.12. > > Ok, sounds good. > > Wow, I just looked at the tpm code, and it is, um, "interesting" in how > it thinks device lifespans work. Nothing like having 4 different > structures with different lifespans embedded within a single structure. > Good thing that no one can dynamically remove a TPM device during > "normal" operation. The regressions were during suspend then the tpm gets removed. In fact I'm pretty sure it is an existing problem that the change in the lookup just surfaced in a way that the test bot notices, but I didn't want to guard the block changes on it.
