Re: remove get_super
- To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
- Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>, Stefan Haberland <sth@linux.ibm.com>, Jan Hoeppner <hoeppner@linux.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>, "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, nbd@other.debian.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
- Subject: Re: remove get_super
- From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 21:19:17 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20230814191917.GF2420@twin.jikos.cz>
- Reply-to: dsterba@suse.cz
- In-reply-to: <20230811190507.GA2791339@perftesting>
- References: <[🔎] 20230811100828.1897174-1-hch@lst.de> <20230811190507.GA2791339@perftesting>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 03:05:07PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> The CI testing didn't show any regressions or lockdep errors related to moving
> the device opening around (which is what I was worried about).
The problems with device opening and scanning we fixed in the past were
not hit by regular testing, syzbot had reproducers that were relatively
reliable so we'd need this kind of verification.
Reply to: