On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > OK, I agree, it doesn't really matter from latency/etc pov. > > But still I can't understand why it is better to take fs->lock under > RCU lock. I mean, "fs->lock is the innermost lock" should not apply > to rcu_read_lock(). Because the latter is a bit special, no? Oh, I don't think it matters. If you want to put the RCU read-lock innermost, that's fine by me. I just reacted to your latency argument as not being very strong :) All I personally want is a patch that everybody can agree on, and that has sane semantics. Linus -- 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
