Re: Linux 2.6.35

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:05:42AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:24:28AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > .36.  I'd much rather see the inode_lock scaling or the lockless path
> > walk going in before, but I haven't checked how complicated the
> > reordering would be.  The lockless path walk also is only rather
> > theoretically useful until we do ACL checks lockless as we're having
> > ACLs enabled pretty much everywhere at least in the distros.
> 
> >From a quick look it seems like the inode_lock splitup can easily
> be moved forward, and it would help us with doing some work on the
> writeback side.  The problem is that it would need rebasing ontop
> of both the vfs and writeback (aka block) trees.

inode_lock splitup is much simpler than dcache_lock, yes.

And I have to rebase it on the work currently queued for 2.6.35
anyway, so that's no problem. I can easily put it in front of
dcache_lock patches in the series (as I said, I've kept everything
independent and well split up).

I do want opinions on how to do the big-picture merge, though,
before I start moving things around. And obviously reviewing
each of the parts is more important at this point than exact
way to order the thing.

But even the inode_lock patches I am wary of merging in 2.6.36
without having much review or any linux-next / vfs-tree exposure.