From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/52] fs: dcache scale subdirs
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:50:17 +0200
Message-ID: <87pqzgaheu.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
References: <20100624030212.676457061@suse.de>
	<20100624030727.818410048@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
To: npiggin@suse.de
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100624030727.818410048@suse.de> (npiggin@suse.de's message of
	"Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:02:26 +1000")
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

npiggin@suse.de writes:

> Protect d_subdirs and d_child with d_lock, except in filesystems that aren't
> using dcache_lock for these anyway (eg. using i_mutex).

Different locking for different file systems seems a bit confusing.
Could the be unified?

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.