Hi Steve, On 10/18/2010 11:59 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:29:37 +0530 > Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> cifs_tcp_ses_lock is a rwlock with protects the cifs_tcp_ses_list, >> server->smb_ses_list and the ses->tcon_list. It also protects a few >> ref counters in server, ses and tcon. In most cases the critical section >> doesn't seem to be large, in a few cases where it is slightly large, there >> seem to be really no benefit from concurrent access. I briefly considered RCU >> mechanism but it appears to me that there is no real need. >> >> Replace it with a spinlock and get rid of the last rwlock in the cifs code. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/cifs/cifs_debug.c | 12 ++++---- >> fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 8 +++--- >> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 2 +- >> fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 6 ++-- >> fs/cifs/connect.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- >> fs/cifs/misc.c | 14 +++++----- >> fs/cifs/sess.c | 4 +- >> 7 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-) >> > > Looks reasonable. These codepaths aren't terribly "hot", so this lock > is fairly low-contention anyway. > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> Can this and the subsequent comment fix patch can be queued for 2.6.37 (merge window seems open) if you don't see any issues? Thanks, -- Suresh Jayaraman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
