From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m3UBXnOP008276 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:33:53 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:34:18 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema Message-ID: <20080430113418.GP108924158@sgi.com> References: <20080430090502.GH14976@parisc-linux.org> <20080430104125.GM108924158@sgi.com> <20080430105832.GA20442@infradead.org> <20080430111154.GO108924158@sgi.com> <20080430111521.GA16571@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080430111521.GA16571@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , Matthew Wilcox , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 07:15:21AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 09:11:54PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > waitqueues are loked internally and don't need synchronization. With > > > a little bit of re-arranging the code the wake_up could probably be > > > moved out of the critical section. > > > > Yeah, I just realised that myself and was about to reply as such.... > > > > I'll move the wakeup outside the lock. > > Below is the version I have now. One of the rare cases where using > sv_t actually cleans up the code (althoug the whole sv_ family should > probably loose some arguments). Yep, much cleaner. Who's signoff goes on this? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group