On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 08:53:35AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 07:44:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The Subject prefix for this should be "block:".
> >
> > > @@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio)
> > > {
> > > struct submit_bio_ret ret;
> > >
> > > - init_completion(&ret.event);
> > > + init_completion_with_map(&ret.event, &bio->bi_disk->lockdep_map);
> >
> > FYI, I have an outstanding patch to simplify this a lot, which
> > switches this to DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK. I can delay this or let
> > you pick it up with your series, but we'll need a variant of
> > DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK with the lockdep annotations.
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry for late.
>
> I think your patch makes block code simpler and better. I like it.
>
> But, I just wonder if it's related to my series.
Because it shows that we also need a version of DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK
the gets passed an explicit lockdep map. And because if it was merged
through a different tree it would create a conflict.
> Is it proper to add
> your patch into my series?
Sure.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
