From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 23:43:22 -0500
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic
In-Reply-To: <47843957.9060208@redhat.com>
References: <4781BE72.7050404@redhat.com>
	<18307.2757.579354.785142@notabene.brown>
	<47843957.9060208@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <478450EA.7030608@redhat.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wendy Cheng wrote:

> Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> Some options:
>>
>> Have an initial patch which removes all references to f_locks and
>> includes the change in this patch. With that in place your main
>> patch won't introduce a bug. If you do this, you should attempt to
>> understand and justify the performance impact (does nlm_traverse_files
>> become quadratic in number of locks. Is that acceptable?).
>>
>> Change the first patch to explicitly update f_count if you bypass the
>> call to nlm_inspect_file.
>>
>> something else???
>>
>>
>
> Let's see what hch says in another email... will come back to this soon.
>

Will do a quick and dirty performance measure tomorrow when I get to the 
office. Then we'll go from there.

-- Wendy