From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Wagner 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 Message-ID: <54F4936F.2070608@monom.org> References: <1425306313-7234-1-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> <20150302102350.04200e0d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jeff Layton , Daniel Wagner Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:38780 "EHLO mail-wg0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754938AbbCBQog (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:44:36 -0500 Received: by wgha1 with SMTP id a1so34642529wgh.5 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:44:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150302102350.04200e0d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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