From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:44:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F4936F.2070608@monom.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150302102350.04200e0d@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
On 03/02/2015 04:23 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> These look good at first glance, but I do need to go over patches 3 and
> 4 in more detail.
>
> FWIW, usually when I see "RFC" in the subject, I take it as a hint that
> this is still work-in-progress and that you're looking for early feedback
> on it, and hence they it shouldn't be merged yet. Is that the case
> here, or would I be OK to merge these?
I screwed that part over. I wanted to send them as 'PATCH'. Though I
have planned to do another benchmark round and see if it there isn't any
problem left in there.
Thanks for going easy on me, first time looking at this end of the kernel :)
cheers,
daniel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-02 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-02 14:25 [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Daniel Wagner
2015-03-02 14:25 ` [RFC v2 1/4] locks: Remove unnecessary IS_POSIX test Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:55 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 14:25 ` [RFC v2 2/4] locks: Add lockdep assertion for blocked_lock_lock Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:55 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 14:25 ` [RFC v2 3/4] locks: Split insert/delete block functions into flock/posix parts Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:55 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 14:20 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-04 15:00 ` Boaz Harrosh
2015-03-04 15:32 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-04 17:59 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 19:16 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 21:01 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 21:12 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 21:13 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-02 14:25 ` [RFC v2 4/4] locks: Use blocked_lock_lock only to protect blocked_hash Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:58 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 15:23 ` [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 16:44 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54F4936F.2070608@monom.org \
--to=wagi@monom.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=jlayton@primarydata.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).