From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:12 -0400 Received: from fe100.worldonline.dk ([212.54.64.211]:55050 "HELO fe100.worldonline.dk") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:56:13 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Jonathan Lahr Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Message-ID: <20010831075613.A2855@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010830134930.F23680@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010830134930.F23680@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 30 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote: > > Included below is a snapshot of a patch I am developing to reduce > io_request_lock contention in 2.4. No no no, you are opening a serious can of worms. No offense, but did you really think this would fly?! This is already being taken care of for 2.5, lets leave 2.4 alone in this regard. -- Jens Axboe