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: [PATCH] blkcg: add rcu lock to bio_clone_blkg_association()
To:     Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc:     kernel-team@fb.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20181221145441.13814-1-dennis@kernel.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <f1dacd9e-7c3d-44e5-aff1-923d9e7a374c@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:26:02 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181221145441.13814-1-dennis@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/21/18 7:54 AM, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> I cleaned up blkg_tryget_closest() to require rcu_read_lock() earlier.
> However, this was a subtle case too which clearly was too subtle for me.
> The idea was the src bio should be holding a ref to the blkg so rcu
> wasn't technically needed. If it doesn't hold a ref, it should be %NULL
> and the blkg->parent pointers are unused.
> 
> This adds the appropriate read lock in bio_clone_blkg_association().

Shall I just fold this with the previous? I staged it in a
later-in-merge-cycle branch, so that's not an issue to amend.

-- 
Jens Axboe