From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valerie Aurora Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/41] VFS: Remove unnecessary micro-optimization in cached_lookup() Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:25:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20091210212533.GD10388@shell> References: <1256152779-10054-5-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <200911300207.nAU27duL007220@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jan Blunck , Alexander Viro , Christoph Hellwig , Andy Whitcroft , Scott James Remnant , Sandu Popa Marius , Jan Rekorajski , "J. R. Okajima" , Arnd Bergmann , Vladimir Dronnikov , Felix Fietkau , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Erez Zadok Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200911300207.nAU27duL007220@agora.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:07:39PM -0500, Erez Zadok wrote: > In message <1256152779-10054-5-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com>, Valerie Aurora writes: > > From: Jan Blunck > > > > d_lookup() takes rename_lock which is a seq_lock. This is so cheap > > it's not worth calling lockless __d_lookup() first from > > cache_lookup(). Rename cached_lookup() to cache_lookup() while we're > > there. > > Val, this is another patch unrelated to union mounts, an > optimization/simplification of the VFS code. I think you need to try and > push such VFS patches upstream more quickly, so as to reduce the set of UM > patches you have to maintain. I agree. We posted them separately once and will do so again. -VAL