Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic

[Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>]

Wendy Cheng wrote:

> Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> Some options:
>>
>> Have an initial patch which removes all references to f_locks and
>> includes the change in this patch. With that in place your main
>> patch won't introduce a bug. If you do this, you should attempt to
>> understand and justify the performance impact (does nlm_traverse_files
>> become quadratic in number of locks. Is that acceptable?).
>>
>> Change the first patch to explicitly update f_count if you bypass the
>> call to nlm_inspect_file.
>>
>> something else???
>>
>>
>
> Let's see what hch says in another email... will come back to this soon.
>

Will do a quick and dirty performance measure tomorrow when I get to the 
office. Then we'll go from there.

-- Wendy