From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valerie Aurora Henson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Current state of Vals patches and the file map lookup patches Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:26:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20090120032611.GB1525@shell> References: <20090119121918.31454.61737.stgit@zeus.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090119121918.31454.61737.stgit@zeus.themaw.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Ian Kent Cc: autofs mailing list , Paul Wankadia On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 09:24:33PM +0900, Ian Kent wrote: > I've pulled in the patches that Val posted and made a couple of > minor changes. I also have what I think is just about what we > need to reduce the overhead of file map scanning. Great, thank you! > Check'em out please folks. I have a crumpled post-it note on my desk saying "valgrind automount." How hard would this be to do while running the Connectathon suite? It would sure make me feel better about these patches. > I'm a little concerned about the "fix kernel includes" patch because > there should be more to it and I've altered it in line with that. I'm > not sure if we should post a kernel patch first, pull in the updated > kernel header files to the tar and finally make the other couple of > changes then. But then I may have it wrong so check it out. Yeah, there's a trade-off there. I think the approach you've taken is the most sensible, given that nothing makes me more insane than out of sync user and kernel code. -VAL