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;
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] net/9p: Fix a deadlock case in the
 virtio transport
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
References: <5B49B8CF.40709@huawei.com> <20180714090502.GA16186@nautica>
 <5B49DAA5.3020600@huawei.com> <20180714124715.GA16134@nautica>
 <5B4BFB29.3080507@huawei.com> <20180716133847.GA9421@nautica>
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>
From:   jiangyiwen <jiangyiwen@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5B4D426F.8050605@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:12:15 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180716133847.GA9421@nautica>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2018/7/16 21:38, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> 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,
> 

ok, I will resend the patch later based on linux-next branch.

Thanks,
Yiwen.