Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-60070-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 14:13:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, fuyuanli <fuyuanli@didiglobal.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: export
 sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs
Message-Id: <20240209141324.28cae36fe14c909058c1fed7@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240209070935.1529844-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
References: <20240209070935.1529844-1-kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri,  9 Feb 2024 02:09:35 -0500 Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:

> needed for thread_with_file; also rare but not unheard of to need this
> in module code, when blocking on user input.

I see no bcachefs code in linux-next which uses this.  All I have to go
with is the above explanation-free assertion.  IOW this patch is
unreviewable.

> one workaround used by some code is wait_event_interruptible()

examples?

> - but that can be buggy if the outer context isn't expecting unwinding.

More explanation of this?

> --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static int __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_check_count = PID_MAX_LIMIT;
>   * Zero means infinite timeout - no checking done:
>   */
>  unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs = CONFIG_DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs);

It seems strange that a module wouild want this.  Makes one wonder what
the heck is going on in there.