From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5CC7CA0 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 04:58:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CD08F804B for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 02:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CWWceqCjjjmNqI6g for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 02:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:58:13 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: remove i_iolock and use i_rwsem in the VFS inode instead Message-ID: <20160812095813.GZ16044@dastard> References: <1470935423-12329-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160811234335.GX16044@dastard> <20160812025026.GA975@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160812025026.GA975@lst.de> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: peterz@infradead.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:50:26AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Yeah, I'd prefer we remove te abstraction first, then switch to the vfs inode lock. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs