On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:40:20PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > I'm really wondering about only trying once before taking the write lock. > Yes, using the lsbit is a cute hack, but are we using it for its cuteness > rather than its effectiveness? > > Renames happen occasionally. If that causes all the current pathname > translations to fall back to the write lock, that is fairly heavy. > Worse, all of those translations will (unnecessarily) bump the write > seqcount, triggering *other* translations to fail back to the write-lock > path. _What_ "pathname translations"? Pathname resolution doesn't fall back to seq_writelock() at all. -- 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
