On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:08:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > > > > Before removing the inode_lock, we need to make the last_ino and iunique > > counters independent of the inode_lock. last_ino can be trivially converted to > > an atomic variable, while the iunique counter needs a new lock nested inside > > the inode_lock to provide the same protection that the inode_lock previously > > provided. > > Given that last_ino becomes a per-cpu construct only a few patches later > I think there's no point to make it an atomic_t here - just reorder the > per-cpu patch before the inode_lock removal. I wanted to avoid doing any of that until inode_lock is gone, but perhaps for this one it makes sense. At the very least, I'll merge the latter two patches into one, and perhaps this one too. -- 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
