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 14:03:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:03:41 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:46340 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:03:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 20:03:33 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Jonathan Lahr Cc: lahr@beaverton.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Message-ID: <20010831200333.A9069@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010830134930.F23680@us.ibm.com> <20010831075613.A2855@suse.de> <20010831075201.N23680@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010831075201.N23680@us.ibm.com>; from lahr@us.ibm.com on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 07:52:01AM -0700 X-OS: Linux 2.2.20 i686 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 31 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote: > > Jens, > > Please elaborate on "no, no, no". Are you suggesting that no further > improvements can be made or should be attempted on the 2.4 i/o subsystem? Of course not. The no no no just means that attempting to globally remove the io_request_lock at this point is a no-go, so don't even go there. The sledgehammer approach will not fly at this point, it's just way too risky. Jens