From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Thu, 29 May 2008 17:51:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4U0pVao030901 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:51:33 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 829C71CF276 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 6MoOhBNMsenT4lF4 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 17:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <483F4FC7.3060801@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:52:23 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: REVIEW: Enhance xfs_repair -P option to disable libxfs xfs_buf_t locking References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Barry Naujok Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Barry Naujok wrote: > I hope the subject is explanation enough :) not really ;) Hum, if I normally lock why do I not want to lock? Locking good? Locking bad? Locking too slow? locking for what? Incoherency ok? Man page updates? :) -Eric