Hi Bart,
But blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() uses BT_TAG_ITER_MAY sleep flag in your
series.
I will mention the nbd driver in the commit message.
As for the fc, I am not sure. I assume that you would know more about
this. My concern is
__nvme_fc_abort_op(struct nvme_fc_ctrl *ctrl, struct nvme_fc_fcp_op *op)
{
...
ctrl->lport->ops->fcp_abort(&ctrl->lport->localport, ..);
}
Looking at many instances of fcp_abort callback, they look atomic safe
from general high usage of spinlock, but I am not certain. They are
quite complex.
I have not tried to analyze whether or not it is safe to call
__nvme_fc_abort_op() from an atomic context. Instead I analyzed the
contexts from which this function is called, namely the
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() calls in __nvme_fc_abort_outstanding_ios() and
__nvme_fc_abort_outstanding_ios(). Both blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() calls
are followed by a call to a function that may sleep. Hence it is safe to
sleep inside the blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() calls from the nvme_fc code.
I have not tried to analyze whether it would be safe to change these
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() calls into blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter_atomic()
calls. Does this answer your question?
Yes, fine.
Thanks,
John
