2012/2/28 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>: > I got a chance to look through this patch set in more detail on the way > to the SMB2.2 test event. I liked many of the patches, but this one > seems to complicate, rather than simplify by adding a spinlock > to what used to be an atomic_inc. There is also a possibility that this > spinlock will become hot. I don't mind moving the atomic_inc inside the > new dec_in_flight macro though to make it easier in the future. > The idea was to simplify the usage of inFlight value. Now it is protected by both spin_lock and atomic mechanism in one case and with only atomic in another - I think it's rather complicated. The patch gets rid of one of the protection mechanism (atomic) and use only spin_lock - this spin_lock is used further for protecting oplock and echo specific variables as well. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
