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, 10 May 2002 18:13:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 May 2002 18:13:02 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:4797 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 May 2002 18:13:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3CDC45EF.9000506@us.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:13:03 -0700 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020504 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fs/locks.c BKL removal In-Reply-To: <3CDC4037.8040104@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org As Linus pointed out, a semaphore is probably the wrong way to go. The only things that really needs to be protected are the list operations themselves. > No, I really think the code should use a spinlock for the global list, and > then on a per-lock basis something like a reference count and a blocking > lock (which might be a semaphore). -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com