Re: [PATCH 17/18] fs: icache remove inode_lock

Nick Piggin
2010-10-13T12:26:03Z

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:20:02AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:03:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:28:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:27:01PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > I'm happy to help to port the top of the patch set onto changes in
> > > > earlier parts of it, but I would like the chance to do this really. I'm
> > > > back in action now, so I can spend a lot of time catching up.
> > >
> > > That's all good and fine, but it's really no reason for delaying getting
> > > the most important bits in.
> >
> > Really? I *really* think I can be given the chance to review what's
> > happened, catch up, and make sure it's foward compatible with the
> > rest of my tree.
>
> Please go and review it, the more eyes core code gets the better. But
> don't assume you have carte blanche to delay things again just for the
> fun of it.

Heh, I'm not, I've been the one driving most of this, so it's not a big
deal. I'm not interested in trying to delay it, trust me, but I think I
can be given some time to review it. It's taken much more than a couple
of weeks for me to get serious reviews...

> Other patches in your tree will need at least as many
> changes as the inode bits did, so they will need some major work anyway.
> Holding the splitup now for things that will take at least another half
> a year to hit the tree is rather pointless.
>
> > The most important bits are, in fact, mostly my
> > patches anyway unless there is a fundamentally different approach to
> > take. And so either way I don't think it is ready for 2.6.37 if it
> > hasn't been in vfs for testing and review by fs people -- that's what
> > we agreed I thought for the inode and dcache lock splitups.
>
> fs and vfs people have been reviewing the code for the last couple of
> weeks, and we're almost done.

Thanks very much, it looks productive. I'm not sure if I agree exactly
with everything but I'll catch up and get back to it.

> Unless we'll find anoher issue it
> should go into the vfs tree. Given that we don't even have a vfs
> tree for .37 yet there's no way we could have put it in earlier anyay..