On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:35:45AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:25:21AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote: > > Seems like discussion on this patch series has died down. There's been > > a concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop, > > md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me > > how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with > > loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address > > consolidation with other cases if and when those are addressed. > > > > Jens, you've expressed interest in seeing this series go through the > > block tree so I'm interested in your perspective here. Barring any > > concrete implementation bugs, would you be okay merging this version? > > Independ of any higher level issues you need to sort out the spinlock > mess I pointed out. Will do - I'll split out the lock-use refactor into a separate patch. Do you have particular concerns about re-using the existing spinlock? Its existing use is not contended so I didn't see any harm in extending its use. I'll add this justification to the commit message as well, but I'm tempted to leave the re-use as is instead of creating a new lock.
