Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:38:47 +0200
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@huawei.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Ron Minnich <rminnich@sandia.gov>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] net/9p: Fix a deadlock case in the
 virtio transport
Message-ID: <20180716133847.GA9421@nautica>
References: <5B49B8CF.40709@huawei.com>
 <20180714090502.GA16186@nautica>
 <5B49DAA5.3020600@huawei.com>
 <20180714124715.GA16134@nautica>
 <5B4BFB29.3080507@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5B4BFB29.3080507@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

jiangyiwen wrote on Mon, Jul 16, 2018:
> You're right, this wake up operation should be put after the unlocking,
> I will resend it. In addition, whether I should resend this patch based
> on your 9p-next branch?

There is a trivial conflict with Thomas' validate PDU length patch,
but as it is trivial either work for me - pick whichever is easier to
work with for you.

The main reason I asked for a new version of the other patch is that the
IDR rework changed spin locks, so I'd rather it being clean.


Thanks,
-- 
Dominique