On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:14 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from? > > > > Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm > > struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all. > > Well you did send me a series of patches to remove it, but > unfortunately that was just as you made some larger changes > to autofs4 upstream and I wasn't able to keep them up to date. > > It would be much appreciated if you had time to take another > look at all the locking and streamline it. I have started looking at it but just the autofs4_lock. As you know, we have some significant autofs changes in progress, so I don't want to spend a huge amount of time testing (and the testing does take a long time) against source that will be very different. So far I can't see that the autofs4_lock will introduce any problem so I want to leave it for now and (probably) eliminate it in the new code since that will need changes as well and will need to be re-tested. I'd appreciate it if you could find time to reply to David's questions about the changes to our d_automount patch series. Although, based on our previous discussion, I think he has it about right, but a word or two from you would be really helpful. Ian -- 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
