On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 11:00 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the concept/idea goes back a few months and was discussed with
> the cgroup folks. But I totally agree that the implementation could
> have been cleaner, especially at this point in time.
>
> I'm fine with you reverting those two patches for 5.2 if you want to,
> and the BFQ folks can do this more cleanly for 5.3.

I don't think the code is _broken_, and I don't think the link_name
thing is wrong. So no point in reverting unless we see more issues.

I just wish it had been done differently, both from the patch details
standpoint, but also in making sure the cgroup people were aware (and
maybe they were, but it certainly didn't show up in the commit).

So I think an incremental patch like the attached would make the code
easier to understand (I really do mis-like random boolean flags being
passed around that change behavior in undocumented and non-obvious
ways), but I'd also want to make sure that Tejun & co are all on board
and know about it..

I'm sure this happens a lot, but during the rc series I just end up
*looking* at details like this a lot more, when I see changes outside
of a subsystem directory.

Tejun&co, we're talking about commit 54b7b868e826 ("cgroup: let a
symlink too be created with a cftype file") which didn't have any sign
of you guys being aware of it or having acked it.

                   Linus