From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752192AbeB0I0D (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:26:03 -0500 Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:58378 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751952AbeB0I0C (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 03:26:02 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.184 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com To: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner Cc: kernel-team@lge.com, LKML From: Byungchul Park Subject: [QUESTION] Bringing cross-release back to be alive Message-ID: <8c535191-e24d-6465-e809-81ae9e9b23e0@lge.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:26:00 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Cross-release introduced a false positive in some fs configs, which was too hard to solve fundamentally - which requires to distinguish between all dynamic instances. I also think it better be removed than making fs developers disable whole lockdep. But I believe that it's still helpful in the rest of the configs. Therefore, I want to bring it back after preventing bothering them. I think we can achieve it by invalidating problematic waiters at the moment producing a false positive and letting them worked out finely later. For example, in the case where we got trouble in, we can initialize the completion in submit_bio_wait() with no-map version. That way, we can achieve our goal easily for all problems caused by cross-release in the future. Of course, it would be the best if we solve the problems in a right way later, but just leaving them invalidated would be also fine because the cases are exactly same as before applying cross-release. I'm curious about what you think about that. If you say yes, then I will re-summit after adding the work I mentioned above. -- Thanks, Byungchul