On 2020-04-10 14:27, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:50 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 8:34 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:12:21PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> Please add a might_sleep() call in blk_put_queue() since with this patch >>>> applied it is no longer allowed to call blk_put_queue() from atomic context. >>> >>> Sure thing. >> >> On second though, I don't think blk_put_queue() would be the right >> place for might_sleep(), given we really only care about the *last* >> refcount decrement to 0. So I'll move it to blk_release_queue(). >> Granted, at that point we are too late, and we'd get a splat about >> this issue *iff* we really sleep. So yeah, I do suppose that forcing >> this check there still makes sense. > > I'll add might_sleep() to both blk_release_queue() *and* blk_cleanup_queue(). Since there is already an unconditional mutex_lock() call in blk_cleanup_queue(), do we really need to add a might_sleep() call in blk_cleanup_queue()? Thanks, Bart.
