From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] lglock: remove online variants of lock
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:12:29 +1000
Message-ID: <20120420111229.GG25458@amd.local0.net>
References: <87ehtf3lqh.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
 <20120227155338.7b5110cd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
 <20120228112422.GC11324@alboin.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <87obsbzfzm.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87obsbzfzm.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 05:33:41PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Optimizing the slow paths adds a lot of complexity.  If you need to
> grab every lock often, you have other problems.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>


Someone might cry about online vs possible discrepancy, but
I don't really mind.

Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>