From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] shrink_dcache_parent() deadlock Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:59:07 +1100 Message-ID: <20120109205907.GE4198@dastard> References: <87ipkl87m9.fsf@tucsk.pomaz.szeredi.hu> <20120109171639.GA9359@infradead.org> <20120109173010.GX23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig , Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, gregkh@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:30:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Al Viro wrote: > > > > Resend would be nice; I can try to dig the series out and rebase it, but... > > Here's a TOTALLY UNTESTED rebase of just that single patch from Dave. > > I did not check if the rest of the series did something that this > patch needs, so the patch may be entirely broken, but it does look > sane on its own (ie I do not see anything obviously broken in it). So > it still looks like a nice cleanup, but maybe I'm missing something > subtle, and maybe the rest of Dave's series really is required. Nothing else is required - that patch is a OK by itself as a bug fix/cleanup. > It compiles. That's all I'm going to say about my extensive testing. > Which is also why I haven't added my sign-off to it. I did quite a bit of load and stress testing on the series back when I first posted it, so the dcache changes don't have any problems I know of. > Comments? Looks OK to me. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com