From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: RT, what to do about up/down_read_non_owner() Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:07:08 +0200 Message-ID: <1465204028.11062.3.camel@gmail.com> References: <1465109869.4263.23.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-rt-users Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:38201 "EHLO mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751025AbcFFJHL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 05:07:11 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id m124so62832534wme.1 for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2016 02:07:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 09:49 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 06/05/2016 08:57 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > In v4.7, Al added those buggers to NFS. BCACHE is disabled in RT > > because of same.. but that's a somewhat suboptimal solution for > > something as widely used as NFS. > > > > Suggestions? I reverted the offending commit to get 4.7-rt up and > > running, but that's not gonna fly long term. > > This API should be avoided according to the comment and completions > should be used. I am for removal of those. Were the locking people okay > with this change in the first place or did this just sneak in? It just snuck in. Al reworked sillyunlink, whacking the wait_event() stuff that was there, using annoying $subject instead. -Mike