On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > npiggin@xxxxxxx writes: > > > Add a new lock, dcache_inode_lock, to protect the inode's i_dentry list > > from concurrent modification. d_alias is also protected by d_lock. > > This would seem to ask for per object lock? Why not put it into the inode? Yes, this comes later in the last patch, because the first round is just meant to be as simple as possible, and making it per-inode is non-trivial (not too difficult, but just not totally trivial) for reasons given in that patch changelog. -- 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
