On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 04:55:13PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 16:28:55 +0300 Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 03:15:00PM +0200, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > >> Thanks for the review. There's just one concern I have. With this patch > >> the bufspace_daemon threads appear to shutdown after the buf_daemon and > >> after the syncer because the event handlers are registered later. Are > >> there any dependencies between these processes that require the bufspace > >> threads to be stopped earlier? > > > > I think for correctness bufdaemon must stop after the syncer, since syncer > > operation can cause a situation where bufdaemon help is needed to proceed. > > Other than this, the stop order is irrelevant, because after syncer > > finished, there should be no any further filesystem activity. > > A quick way to do that would be to use SHUTDOWN_PRI_LAST + 100 for the > event handlers in the patch, like shutdown_conf in kern_shutdown.c > already does. Is that acceptable here as well? I do not see why not.Received on Sun Apr 22 2018 - 13:04:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:15 UTC