On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 18:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger > <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This patch changes percpu_ida_alloc() to accept task state bitmask > > for prepare_to_wait() to support interruptible sleep for callers > > that require it. > > This patch-series is not bisectable. Afaik, the first patch will break > the build (or at least cause the end result to not actually work). > > This kind of "split up one large patch into many small patches THAT > DON'T ACTUALLY WORK INDIVIDUALLY" model is pure and utter garbage. > > So a big NAK on this series as being completely broken. > So the late night reasoning was to allow the patches to apply cleanly to stable. That was, indeed, a bad decision. > To fix it, I would suggest: > > - make the first patch change all *existing* users (that only have > the atomic vs uninterruptible semantics) pass in either > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_RUNNING depending on whether they had > __GFP_WAIT or not. > > So the first patch would not change *any* semantics or behavior, it > would only change the calling convention. > > - do the cleanup patches to block/blk-mq-tag.c to not have those > "gfp" calling convention, and instead passing in the state natively > > - add the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE case last (which includes the new > "signal_pending_state()" logic in percpu_ida_alloc()) > > that way, all patches compile cleanly and should each work > individually, and they all do clearly just one thing. And the biggest > patch in the series (the first one) doesn't actually make any semantic > changes. -v2 sent out. Please review. Jens, please review the blk-mq specific changes in patch #1, and let me know if you'd like to pick-up #2 via the block tree, or have it included in target-pending/for-next. Thanks, --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
