Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:14 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from?
> >
> > Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm
> > struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all.
> 
> Well you did send me a series of patches to remove it, but
> unfortunately that was just as you made some larger changes
> to autofs4 upstream and I wasn't able to keep them up to date.
> 
> It would be much appreciated if you had time to take another
> look at all the locking and streamline it.

I have started looking at it but just the autofs4_lock.

As you know, we have some significant autofs changes in progress, so I
don't want to spend a huge amount of time testing (and the testing does
take a long time) against source that will be very different. So far I
can't see that the autofs4_lock will introduce any problem so I want to
leave it for now and (probably) eliminate it in the new code since that
will need changes as well and will need to be re-tested.

I'd appreciate it if you could find time to reply to David's questions
about the changes to our d_automount patch series. Although, based on
our previous discussion, I think he has it about right, but a word or
two from you would be really helpful.

Ian