On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:06:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > So it makes a lot of sense to have a lock to rule the inode (as opposed > to now we have a lock to rule *all* inodes). I don't disagree with this approach - I object to the fact that you repurpose an existing lock and change it's locking rules to "rule the inode". We don't have any one lock that "rules the inode", anyway, so adding a new "i_list_lock" for the new VFS level locking strategies makes it a lot more self-contained. Fundamentally I'm less concerned about the additional memory usage than I am about having landmines planted around i_lock... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
