From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:40:33 -0400
Message-ID: <20101022114033.GA8859@infradead.org>
References: <1287622186-1935-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1287622186-1935-17-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101022015622.GE19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20101022031431.GK12506@dastard>
 <20101022103705.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:52033 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754489Ab0JVLkn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:40:43 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101022103705.GK19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:37:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> One more note: IMO sb list lock is better off inside the hash one; when we
> do per-chain hash locks, we'll be better off if we don't have to hold sb
> one over the entire chain search.

Why would you nest these two at all?