From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B94E7CA1 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 21:50:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3587304051 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id J1Z4s2WfOrf3uFt0 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:50:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:50:26 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: remove i_iolock and use i_rwsem in the VFS inode instead Message-ID: <20160812025026.GA975@lst.de> References: <1470935423-12329-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160811234335.GX16044@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160811234335.GX16044@dastard> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: peterz@infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:43:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Regardless, if the rwsem code can be made to check for exclusive or > shared locking, we can get rid of the mrlock abstraction. Can we do > that first, Christoph, then make this lock change? I was going to do that next, but if you want the patch order switched around I can do that as well. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs