Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Thx for the report.

CCing the regression mailing list, as it should be in the loop for all
regressions, as explained here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html

On 26.08.22 18:15, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> 
> I think I've found a regression introduced by:
> a09b314 o block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

Just FYI, in case you are not aware of it already: there was another
report that this commit causes problems. See this thread for details:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/72a5bf2e-cd56-a85c-2b99-cb8729a66fed@deltatee.com/#t

Anyway, let me add this report to the regressions tracking:

[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]

> In Fedora CoreOS we have tests that set up RAID1 on the /boot/ and /root/ partitions
> and then subsequently removes one of the disks to simulate a failure. Sometime recently
> this test started timing out occasionally. Looking a bit closer it appears instances are
> getting stuck during reboot with a bunch of looping messages:
> 
> ```
> [   17.978854] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.982555] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.985537] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.987546] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.989540] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.991547] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.993555] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.995539] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.997577] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   17.999544] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [   22.979465] blkdev_get_no_open: 1666 callbacks suppressed
> ...
> ...
> ...
> [  618.221270] blkdev_get_no_open: 1664 callbacks suppressed
> [  618.221273] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.224274] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.227267] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.229274] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.231277] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.233277] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.235282] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.237370] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.239356] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> [  618.241290] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
> ```
> 
> Using the Fedora kernels I narrowed it down to being introduced between 
> `kernel-5.19.0-0.rc3.27.fc37` (good) and `kernel-5.19.0-0.rc4.33.fc37` (bad).
> 
> I then did a bisect and found:
> 
> ```
> $ git bisect bad
> a09b314005f3a0956ebf56e01b3b80339df577cc is the first bad commit
> commit a09b314005f3a0956ebf56e01b3b80339df577cc
> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Date:   Tue Jun 14 09:48:27 2022 +0200
> 
>     block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk
>     
>     Freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk so that the state does not
>     change while we remove debugfs and sysfs files.
>     
>     Ming mentioned that being able to observer request in debugfs might
>     be useful while the queue is being frozen in del_gendisk, which is
>     made possible by this change.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220614074827.458955-5-hch@lst.de
>     Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> 
>  block/genhd.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> ```
> 
> Reverting this commit on top of latest git master (4c612826b) gave me successful results.
> 
> Any ideas on what could be amiss here? Luckily the patch is tiny so hopefully it might
> be obvious.
> 
> More details (including logs) in the following locations:
> 
> - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121791
> - https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1282
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> Dusty
> 

Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the
cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression
tracking bot:

#regzbot ^introduced a09b314005f3a0
#regzbot title block: timeouts when removing a disk from a RAID1
#regzbot ignore-activity

This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/

Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for
in the Linux kernel's documentation; above webpage explains why this is
important for tracked regressions.

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

[CCing the mdraid maintainer and the raid ml to keep them in the loop]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Top-posting for once,
to make this easily accessible to everyone.

Christoph, Jens, what's up here? Dusty bisected this and even confirmed
a revert on-top of current mainline fixes things for him, nevertheless
he didn't get a single reply since he reported the issue last Friday.

BTW, it seems quite a few Fedora users are now hitting this with the
slightly patched Fedora 5.19.y kernels they since a few days ship as
regular update, as comments in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121791 show -- so it seems
it's not something specific to Dusty's setup.

Could you please look into the issue? tia!

Ciao, Thorsten

On 28.08.22 12:24, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. Thx for the report.
> 
> CCing the regression mailing list, as it should be in the loop for all
> regressions, as explained here:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/reporting-issues.html
> 
> On 26.08.22 18:15, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>> I think I've found a regression introduced by:
>> a09b314 o block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk
> 
> Just FYI, in case you are not aware of it already: there was another
> report that this commit causes problems. See this thread for details:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/72a5bf2e-cd56-a85c-2b99-cb8729a66fed@deltatee.com/#t
> 
> Anyway, let me add this report to the regressions tracking:
> 
> [TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
> regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
> paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
> 
>> In Fedora CoreOS we have tests that set up RAID1 on the /boot/ and /root/ partitions
>> and then subsequently removes one of the disks to simulate a failure. Sometime recently
>> this test started timing out occasionally. Looking a bit closer it appears instances are
>> getting stuck during reboot with a bunch of looping messages:
>>
>> ```
>> [   17.978854] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.982555] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.985537] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.987546] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.989540] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.991547] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.993555] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.995539] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.997577] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   17.999544] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [   22.979465] blkdev_get_no_open: 1666 callbacks suppressed
>> ...
>> ...
>> ...
>> [  618.221270] blkdev_get_no_open: 1664 callbacks suppressed
>> [  618.221273] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.224274] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.227267] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.229274] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.231277] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.233277] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.235282] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.237370] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.239356] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> [  618.241290] block device autoloading is deprecated and will be removed.
>> ```
>>
>> Using the Fedora kernels I narrowed it down to being introduced between 
>> `kernel-5.19.0-0.rc3.27.fc37` (good) and `kernel-5.19.0-0.rc4.33.fc37` (bad).
>>
>> I then did a bisect and found:
>>
>> ```
>> $ git bisect bad
>> a09b314005f3a0956ebf56e01b3b80339df577cc is the first bad commit
>> commit a09b314005f3a0956ebf56e01b3b80339df577cc
>> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> Date:   Tue Jun 14 09:48:27 2022 +0200
>>
>>     block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk
>>     
>>     Freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk so that the state does not
>>     change while we remove debugfs and sysfs files.
>>     
>>     Ming mentioned that being able to observer request in debugfs might
>>     be useful while the queue is being frozen in del_gendisk, which is
>>     made possible by this change.
>>     
>>     Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220614074827.458955-5-hch@lst.de
>>     Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>
>>  block/genhd.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> ```
>>
>> Reverting this commit on top of latest git master (4c612826b) gave me successful results.
>>
>> Any ideas on what could be amiss here? Luckily the patch is tiny so hopefully it might
>> be obvious.
>>
>> More details (including logs) in the following locations:
>>
>> - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121791
>> - https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1282
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dusty
>>
> 
> Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the
> cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression
> tracking bot:
> 
> #regzbot ^introduced a09b314005f3a0
> #regzbot title block: timeouts when removing a disk from a RAID1
> #regzbot ignore-activity
> 
> This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
> discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
> the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
> something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
> telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
> 
> Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
> pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for
> in the Linux kernel's documentation; above webpage explains why this is
> important for tracked regressions.
> 
> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
> 
> P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
> reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
> this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
> reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.

BTW:

#regzbot link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121791
#regzbot poke

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.

On 13.09.22 04:36, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> On 9/12/22 21:55, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:24:40PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:33:24AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:06:08PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>> It is a bit hard to associate the above commit with reported issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the messages clearly are about something trying to open a device
>>>>> that went away at the block layer, but somehow does not get removed
>>>>> in time by udev (which seems to be a userspace bug in CoreOS).  But
>>>>> even with that we really should not hang.
>>>>
>>>> Xiao Ni provides one script[1] which can reproduce the issue more or less.
>>>
>>> I've run the reproduced 10000 times on current mainline, and while
>>> it prints one of the autoloading messages per run, I've not actually
>>> seen any kind of hang.
>>
>> I can't reproduce the hang too.
> 
> I obviously can reproduce the issue with the test in our Fedora CoreOS
> test suite. It's part of a framework (i.e. it's not simple some script
> you can run) but it is very reproducible so one can add some instrumentation
> to the kernel and feed it through a build/test cycle to see different
> results or logs.
> 
> I'm willing to share this with other people (maybe a screen share or
> some written down instructions) if anyone would be interested.

This thread looked stalled, or was there any progress in the past week?
If not: Fedora apparently removed the patch in their kernels a while
ago, as quite a few users where hitting it. What is preventing us from
doing the same in mainline and 5.19.y until the issue can be resolved?
The description of a09b314005f3 ("block: freeze the queue earlier in
del_gendisk") doesn't sound like the change does something crucial that
can't wait a bit. I might be totally wrong with that, but I think it's
my duty to ask that question at this point.

>> What I meant is that new raid disk can be added by mdadm after stopping
>> the imsm container and raid disk with the autoloading messages printed,
>> I understand this behavior isn't correct, but I am not familiar with
>> raid enough.
>>
>> It might be related with the delay deleting gendisk from wq & md kobj
>> release handler.
>>
>> During reboot, if mdadm does this stupid thing without stopping, the hang
>> could be caused.
>>
>> I think the root cause is that why mdadm tries to open/add new raid bdev
>> crazily during reboot.

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/20/22 3:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
> 
> On 13.09.22 04:36, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> On 9/12/22 21:55, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:16:18AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:24:40PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:33:24AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 03:06:08PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>>> It is a bit hard to associate the above commit with reported issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the messages clearly are about something trying to open a device
>>>>>> that went away at the block layer, but somehow does not get removed
>>>>>> in time by udev (which seems to be a userspace bug in CoreOS).  But
>>>>>> even with that we really should not hang.
>>>>>
>>>>> Xiao Ni provides one script[1] which can reproduce the issue more or less.
>>>>
>>>> I've run the reproduced 10000 times on current mainline, and while
>>>> it prints one of the autoloading messages per run, I've not actually
>>>> seen any kind of hang.
>>>
>>> I can't reproduce the hang too.
>>
>> I obviously can reproduce the issue with the test in our Fedora CoreOS
>> test suite. It's part of a framework (i.e. it's not simple some script
>> you can run) but it is very reproducible so one can add some instrumentation
>> to the kernel and feed it through a build/test cycle to see different
>> results or logs.
>>
>> I'm willing to share this with other people (maybe a screen share or
>> some written down instructions) if anyone would be interested.
> 
> This thread looked stalled, or was there any progress in the past week?
> If not: Fedora apparently removed the patch in their kernels a while
> ago, as quite a few users where hitting it. What is preventing us from
> doing the same in mainline and 5.19.y until the issue can be resolved?
> The description of a09b314005f3 ("block: freeze the queue earlier in
> del_gendisk") doesn't sound like the change does something crucial that
> can't wait a bit. I might be totally wrong with that, but I think it's
> my duty to ask that question at this point.

Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
be nice to get this one wrapped up.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
> be nice to get this one wrapped up.

I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
> 
> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.

Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
I'll queue it up.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 20.09.22 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
>>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
>>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
>>
>> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
>> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.
> 
> Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
> I'll queue it up.

Thx to both of you for taking care of this.

Nitpicking: that patch is missing a "CC: stable@..." tag to ensure
automatic and quick backporting to 5.19.y. Or is the block layer among
the subsystems that prefer to handle such things manually?

Ohh, and a fixes tag might have been good as well; a "Link:" tag
pointing to the report, too. If either would have been there, regzbot
would have noticed Christoph's patch posting and I wouldn't have
bothered you yesterday. :-) But whatever, not that important.

#regzbot fixed-by: 4c66a326b5ab784cddd72d

Ciao, Thorsten

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/21/22 3:25 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 20.09.22 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
>>>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
>>>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
>>>
>>> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
>>> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.
>>
>> Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
>> I'll queue it up.
> 
> Thx to both of you for taking care of this.
> 
> Nitpicking: that patch is missing a "CC: stable@..." tag to ensure
> automatic and quick backporting to 5.19.y. Or is the block layer among
> the subsystems that prefer to handle such things manually?
> 
> Ohh, and a fixes tag might have been good as well; a "Link:" tag
> pointing to the report, too. If either would have been there, regzbot
> would have noticed Christoph's patch posting and I wouldn't have
> bothered you yesterday. :-) But whatever, not that important.

We'll just have to ensure we ping stable on it when it goes in.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:34:26AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/21/22 3:25 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 20.09.22 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
> >>>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
> >>>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
> >>>
> >>> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
> >>> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.
> >>
> >> Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
> >> I'll queue it up.
> > 
> > Thx to both of you for taking care of this.
> > 
> > Nitpicking: that patch is missing a "CC: stable@..." tag to ensure
> > automatic and quick backporting to 5.19.y. Or is the block layer among
> > the subsystems that prefer to handle such things manually?
> > 
> > Ohh, and a fixes tag might have been good as well; a "Link:" tag
> > pointing to the report, too. If either would have been there, regzbot
> > would have noticed Christoph's patch posting and I wouldn't have
> > bothered you yesterday. :-) But whatever, not that important.
> 
> We'll just have to ensure we ping stable on it when it goes in.

If you have a git id that is not going to change, I can watch out for it
to land in Linus's tree...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Jens Axboe]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:47 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:34:26AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 9/21/22 3:25 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > On 20.09.22 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >> On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >>>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
> > >>>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
> > >>>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
> > >>>
> > >>> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
> > >>> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.
> > >>
> > >> Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
> > >> I'll queue it up.
> > >
> > > Thx to both of you for taking care of this.
> > >
> > > Nitpicking: that patch is missing a "CC: stable@..." tag to ensure
> > > automatic and quick backporting to 5.19.y. Or is the block layer among
> > > the subsystems that prefer to handle such things manually?
> > >
> > > Ohh, and a fixes tag might have been good as well; a "Link:" tag
> > > pointing to the report, too. If either would have been there, regzbot
> > > would have noticed Christoph's patch posting and I wouldn't have
> > > bothered you yesterday. :-) But whatever, not that important.
> >
> > We'll just have to ensure we ping stable on it when it goes in.
>
> If you have a git id that is not going to change, I can watch out for it
> to land in Linus's tree...

This is the one:

commit 4c66a326b5ab784cddd72de07ac5b6210e9e1b06 (origin/block-6.0, block-6.0)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date:   Mon Sep 19 16:40:49 2022 +0200

    Revert "block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk"

Thanks Greg!

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[1649986]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 2479 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 263 bytes --]

Hi,  
Our files indicate that there is an overdue bill. Please see the invoice down below.  
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1er_GPEuoLhj1L9nwhbyUT6aASNXPHfWi  
Your one time security password: 64398  
Please tell us if there's an error.  
Regards


  
     
  

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:56:53AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 8:47 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:34:26AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 9/21/22 3:25 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > On 20.09.22 16:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >> On 9/20/22 8:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 08:05:06AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > >>>> Christoph and I discussed this one last week, and he has a plan to try
> > > >>>> a flag approach. Christoph, did you get a chance to bang that out? Would
> > > >>>> be nice to get this one wrapped up.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I gave up on that as it will be far too much change so late in
> > > >>> the cycle and sent you the revert yesterday.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gotcha, haven't made it all the way through the emails of the morning yet.
> > > >> I'll queue it up.
> > > >
> > > > Thx to both of you for taking care of this.
> > > >
> > > > Nitpicking: that patch is missing a "CC: stable@..." tag to ensure
> > > > automatic and quick backporting to 5.19.y. Or is the block layer among
> > > > the subsystems that prefer to handle such things manually?
> > > >
> > > > Ohh, and a fixes tag might have been good as well; a "Link:" tag
> > > > pointing to the report, too. If either would have been there, regzbot
> > > > would have noticed Christoph's patch posting and I wouldn't have
> > > > bothered you yesterday. :-) But whatever, not that important.
> > >
> > > We'll just have to ensure we ping stable on it when it goes in.
> >
> > If you have a git id that is not going to change, I can watch out for it
> > to land in Linus's tree...
> 
> This is the one:
> 
> commit 4c66a326b5ab784cddd72de07ac5b6210e9e1b06 (origin/block-6.0, block-6.0)
> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Date:   Mon Sep 19 16:40:49 2022 +0200
> 
>     Revert "block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk"
> 
> Thanks Greg!

Now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Burt.Beauchamp]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 2314 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 118 bytes --]

Hello,  
I absolutely need your viewpoint on all these documents enclosed.  
SEE DOCS  
Have a great working day

 

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Robert.Briscoe]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 2316 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 158 bytes --]

Good day,  
Our records indicate that there is an overdue invoice. Remember to see the invoice below.  
Kindly let us know if there's an error.  
Thanks

 


[-- Attachment #2: Document_19_dec_48046035.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 66575 bytes --]

Re: regression caused by block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk

[Geneveve.Pizarro]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/html, Size: 1956 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

Good Day,  
In case you have inquiries regarding the business presentation, please remember to contact me.  
SEE DATA  
Many Thanks,