Re: [PATCH -next v3 0/3] blk-cgroup: make sure pd_free_fn() is called in order

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Sun Jan 29 2023 - 16:48:57 EST


On 1/28/23 11:06 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi, Jens
>
> 在 2023/01/20 2:54, Jens Axboe 写道:
>> On 1/19/23 4:03 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>   - add ack tag from Tejun for patch 1,2
>>>   - as suggested by Tejun, update commit message and comments in patch 3
>>>
>>> The problem was found in iocost orignally([1]) that ioc can be freed in
>>> ioc_pd_free(). And later we found that there are more problem in
>>> iocost([2]).
>>>
>>> After some discussion, as suggested by Tejun([3]), we decide to fix the
>>> problem that parent pd can be freed before child pd in cgroup layer
>>> first. And the problem in [1] will be fixed later if this patchset is
>>> applied.
>>
>> Doesn't apply against for-6.3/block (or linux-next or my for-next, for
>> that matter). Can you resend a tested one against for-6.3/block?
>>
>
> This is weird, I just test latest linux-next, and I can apply this
> patchset on the top of following commit:
>
> For latest for-6.3/block, this patch 2 can't be applied because
> following commit is not here:
>
> e3ff8887e7db blk-cgroup: fix missing pd_online_fn() while activating policy
>
> But this patch is already merged into 6.2-rc5.

Since I have one more conflict, I think we'll just rebase for-6.3/block
when -rc6 is out, and then it should apply cleanly.

--
Jens Axboe