Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 01:48:45PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

It should be obvious that representing each consecutive memory range with a
separate directory entry is far from an optimal way of representing
something like this. It's outright silly.

On 6/22/20 11:03 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

I agree.  And again, Ian, you are just "kicking the problem down the
road" if we accept these patches.  Please fix this up properly so that
this interface is correctly fixed to not do looney things like this.

Given that we cannot change the underlying machine representation of this hardware, what do you (all, not just you Greg) consider to be "properly"?

Rick




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux