Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933318AbdCLEfu (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 23:35:50 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:34760 "EHLO mail-io0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755667AbdCLEfp (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2017 23:35:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170306200319.GF19696@htj.duckdns.org> <20170309080531.9048-1-tahsin@google.com> From: Tahsin Erdogan Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 20:35:43 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg_gq outside request queue spinlock To: Jens Axboe Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 362 Lines: 9 On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Talked to Tejun about this as well, and we both agree that the splitting > this into separate init/alloc paths would be much cleaner. I can't > apply the current patch, sorry, it's just too ugly to live. Do you mean, you prefer the approach that was taken in v1 patch or something else?