From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m5QBPPK9006738 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:25:25 -0700 Received: from mail.parisc-linux.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 6B71711D63DD for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.parisc-linux.org (palinux.external.hp.com [192.25.206.14]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id hIt4jkGloz52dyfe for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:26:12 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements Message-ID: <20080626112612.GW4392@parisc-linux.org> References: <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:41:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > XFS object flushing doesn't quite match existing completion semantics. It > mixed exclusive access with completion. That is, we need to mark an object as > being flushed before flushing it to disk, and then block any other attempt to > flush it until the completion occurs. This sounds like mutex semantics. Why are the existing mutexes not appropriate for your needs? -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."