On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 01:35:39PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2025, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
>
> > @@ -2077,35 +2095,55 @@ static int probe_path(struct pgpath *pgpath)
> > static int probe_active_paths(struct multipath *m)
> > {
> > struct pgpath *pgpath;
> > - struct priority_group *pg;
> > + struct priority_group *pg = NULL;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > int r = 0;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&m->work_mutex);
> > -
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&m->lock, flags);
>
> Hi
>
> I suggest replacing spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore with
> spin_lock_irq/spin_unlock_irq here and in some other places where it is
> known that interrupts are enabled (for example __map_bio,
> process_queued_bios, multipath_ctr, flush_multipath_work,
> multipath_resume, multipath_status, multipath_prepare_ioctl, ...).
>
> I accepted this patch, so you can send the spinlock changes in a follow-up
> patch.
Sure. I can do that.
-Ben
>
> Mikulas
