On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ian Kent <raven@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Fair enough. > 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. Yes I am meaning to take a look, I'm a bit busy for the next week, however. -- 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
