On 3/4/24 09:31, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
A revert is justified when a series of patches is buggy and had insufficient review prior to merging.
That's not how Linux kernel development works. If a bug can get fixed easily, a fix is preferred instead of reverting + reapplying a patch.
Using the "a kernel warning hit" approach for work on cancellation is very much a sign that the patches were half baked.
Is there perhaps a misunderstanding? My patches fix a kernel warning and did not introduce any new WARN*() statements.
Why are you touching the kiocb after ownership has already been passed on to another entity?
Touching the kiocb after ownership has been passed is the result of an oversight. Whether or not kiocb->ki_cancel() transfers ownership depends on the I/O type. The use-after-free was not introduced on purpose. Bart.
