Re: [PATCH 1/1] vfs: umount_begin BKL pushdown v2

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:06:34AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> You've not replied to my request (attached below) to put these 
> trivial BKL-pushdown bits into a separate branch/tree and not into 
> the VFS tree. You've now mixed that commit with other VFS changes.
> 
> Had it been in a separate branch, and had we tested it, Linus could 
> have pulled the trivial BKL pushdown bits out of normal merge order 
> as well. That is not possible now.

It shouldn't be pushed out of order.  It's a normal VFS locking change
and should be pushed with the next VFS push for 2.6.31.

> Furthermore, by doing this you are also hindering the 
> tip:kill-the-BKL effort (which has been ongoing for a year chipping 
> away at various BKL details) which facilitated these changes. 
> Alessio did these fixes to fix bugs he can trigger in that tree.
> 
> You've also not explained why you have done it this way. It would 
> cost you almost nothing to apply these bits into a separate branch 
> and merge that branch into your main tree. Lots of other maintainer 
> are doing that.

Having a separate kill the BKL tree is a stupid idea.  Locking changes
need deep subsystem knowledge and should always go through the subsystem
trees.