On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 11:16:15PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I've been promising to do this for about seven years now. > > It seems to work well enough, but I haven't run any serious stress > tests on it. This implementation uses one spinlock to protect both lock > lists and all the i_flock chains. It doesn't seem worth splitting up > the locking any further. I think you missed the code in lockd and nfsd4 code that walks the i_flock lists, and you might want to grep for i_flock to make sure that's all. In fact, lockd runs entirely under the bkl, so it may take a careful review to make sure there aren't some other odd places where it depends on that for mutual exclusion with code in locks.c. Yipes. Thanks for working on this. --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
