From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 02:28:28 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Global spinlock vs local bit spin locks Message-ID: <20050617092828.GI3913@holomorphy.com> References: <1118982092.5261.44.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <20050617044611.GF3913@holomorphy.com> <42B28B44.9090606@yahoo.com.au> <20050617084521.GG3913@holomorphy.com> <42B29635.2020700@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42B29635.2020700@yahoo.com.au> To: Nick Piggin Cc: "David S. Miller" , anton@samba.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Keilty List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I'm ambivalent now I guess. I'm not wild about bh's in the first place, >> so infecting core code with new dependencies on them doesn't sound hot, >> though I still can't help cringing at using a bitflag in the first bh >> in the list to protect against concurrent teardown of the bh list, >> which relies on the setup/teardown patterns. On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:21:57PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > It's not quite as bad as that - there will be no teardown while > any of the buffers are still in flight. The lock is simply to > protect concurrent completion of requests, it could just as > easily go in the last bh. I'd hoped what I had in mind with all that would've been clearer. It should be clear that I understand it is not overtly broken. -- wli