Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 09:25:21 -0400
From:   Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" 
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)" 
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup
Message-ID: <20200512132521.GA28700@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20200428161355.6377-1-schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200428161355.6377-1-schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Seems like discussion on this patch series has died down. There's been
a concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop,
md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me
how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with
loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address
consolidation with other cases if and when those are addressed.

Jens, you've expressed interest in seeing this series go through the
block tree so I'm interested in your perspective here. Barring any
concrete implementation bugs, would you be okay merging this version?