Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 16:05:50 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: export task_work_add
Message-ID: <20220907140550.GA21414@lst.de>
References: <20220829040013.549212-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <5a1b3716-bcf8-8c37-2bd5-44e885de1f48@acm.org> <2d4655d4-2510-eb1e-2e4d-9d910e823293@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2d4655d4-2510-eb1e-2e4d-9d910e823293@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:44:05AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On the patch itself, it definitely makes sense in the context of ublk.
> My hesitation is mostly around not really wanting to export this to
> generic modular users. It's OK for core interfaces, of which ublk is
> on the way to becoming, but I really don't like the idea of random
> modules using it. But that's not really something we can manage with
> the export, it's either exported or it's not...

Yes, I'm really worried about folks doing stupid things with it.
Thinking of the whole loop saga..