From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:20:28 +0800 Message-ID: <1294888828.2757.30.camel@perseus> References: <20110107075831.GA14915@amd> <1294763679.2435.72.camel@doink> <1294768668.2435.177.camel@doink> <1294804776.2821.4.camel@perseus> <1294807279.2821.9.camel@perseus> <1294809426.2821.20.camel@perseus> <1294883313.2757.5.camel@perseus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , aelder@sgi.com, Nick Piggin , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:50743 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932524Ab1AMDUf (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:20:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:14 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from? > > > > Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm > > struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all. > > Well you did send me a series of patches to remove it, but > unfortunately that was just as you made some larger changes > to autofs4 upstream and I wasn't able to keep them up to date. > > It would be much appreciated if you had time to take another > look at all the locking and streamline it. I have started looking at it but just the autofs4_lock. As you know, we have some significant autofs changes in progress, so I don't want to spend a huge amount of time testing (and the testing does take a long time) against source that will be very different. So far I can't see that the autofs4_lock will introduce any problem so I want to leave it for now and (probably) eliminate it in the new code since that will need changes as well and will need to be re-tested. I'd appreciate it if you could find time to reply to David's questions about the changes to our d_automount patch series. Although, based on our previous discussion, I think he has it about right, but a word or two from you would be really helpful. Ian