From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o1ICXwYO050440 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:34:01 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4865C1DD224 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:35:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CLZEiU3iwanPm9gl for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:35:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:35:13 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Non-blocking inode locking in IO completion Message-ID: <20100218123512.GA6016@infradead.org> References: <1266384989-28928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100217192938.GA14015@infradead.org> <20100217211312.GQ28392@discord.disaster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100217211312.GQ28392@discord.disaster> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:13:12AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The patch looks good to me - while I hate introducing random delay() > > calls I don't really see a way around this. > > I thought about using queue_delayed_work(), but then the change > became much bigger and has other side effects like increasing the > size of the ioend structure. Yes, now that the normal work struct and the delayed work struct are different it would be a pain, agreed. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs