From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:22:30 +1100 Message-ID: References: <20110107075831.GA14915@amd> <1294763679.2435.72.camel@doink> <1294768668.2435.177.camel@doink> <1294804776.2821.4.camel@perseus> <1294807279.2821.9.camel@perseus> <1294809426.2821.20.camel@perseus> <1294883313.2757.5.camel@perseus> <1294888828.2757.30.camel@perseus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linus Torvalds , aelder@sgi.com, Nick Piggin , Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells To: Ian Kent Return-path: Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:64548 "EHLO mail-ww0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932602Ab1AMDWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:22:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1294888828.2757.30.camel@perseus> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ian Kent wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:14 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Ian Kent wrote: >> > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: >> >> Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from? >> > >> > Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm >> > struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all. >> >> Well you did send me a series of patches to remove it, but >> unfortunately that was just as you made some larger changes >> to autofs4 upstream and I wasn't able to keep them up to date. >> >> It would be much appreciated if you had time to take another >> look at all the locking and streamline it. > > I have started looking at it but just the autofs4_lock. > > As you know, we have some significant autofs changes in progress, so I > don't want to spend a huge amount of time testing (and the testing does > take a long time) against source that will be very different. So far I > can't see that the autofs4_lock will introduce any problem so I want to > leave it for now and (probably) eliminate it in the new code since that > will need changes as well and will need to be re-tested. Fair enough. > I'd appreciate it if you could find time to reply to David's questions > about the changes to our d_automount patch series. Although, based on > our previous discussion, I think he has it about right, but a word or > two from you would be really helpful. Yes I am meaning to take a look, I'm a bit busy for the next week, however.