On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:35:18 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 07:58, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > BTW, I ran my full test suite on your patches with the below updates and it > > all passed. > > Those patch updates all look sane to me. > > > I can break up and clean up the patches so that they are bisectable, and if > > that passes the bisectable portion of my tests, I can still send them to > > you for 6.8. > > Ack. That series you posted looks fine. I didn't do any actual testing > or applying the patches, just looking at them. > > The one thing I noticed is that the 'llist' removal still needs to be > done. The logical point is that "[PATCH v2 7/7]" where the > eventfs_workfn stuff is ripped out. > > And the 'rcu' head should now be a union with something that is no > longer used after the last kref. The only thing that *is* used after > the last kref is the "is_freed" bit, so there's lots of choice. Using > the 'struct list_head listl' that is used for the child list would > seem to be the obvious choice, but it could be anything (including all > of the beginning of that eventfs_inode, but then you would need to > group that as another nested unnamed struct, so picking a "big enough" > entry like 'list' makes it syntactically simpler. Yeah, that was what I was talking about in my cover letter with: Note, there's more clean ups that can happen. One being cleaning up the eventfs_inode structure. But that's not critical now and can be added later. I just want to get the majority of the broken parts done. The clean up of the eventfs_inode is something that I'd add a separate patch. Not sure that falls in your "fixes" category for 6.8. -- Steve
