From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:18:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:18:19 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:18592 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:18:07 -0500 Message-ID: <3C856E42.50304@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:17:54 -0800 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020227 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove BKL from ext2_get_block() version 2 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > I certainly am not interested in it. 2.4 locking changes for very big boxes > strike me as a little dangerous. I think that I may have presented the patch in the wrong way. The primary reason I'm doing this is BKL removal. The ext2 code just happened to be one of the worst offenders that I'd run into. I've been using the 8-way with dbench because it produces a the worst-case scenario I can think of. I also like watching it compile kernels in just over a minute. :) This patch was also a backport of an Al Viro 2.5 change, so I consider it pretty safe. Only time and testing can tell, but I've tested it about as much as I can. All of this becomes pretty academic if Al decides that he will backport the 2.5 changes, which we all want to see. -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com