On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:45:49PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > The dquot code is just going to have to live with the fact that there's > additional locking going on that it doesn't need. I'm open to getting > rid of the irqsafety, but we can't give up the spinlock protection > without giving up the RCU/lockdep analysis and the ability to move nodes. > I don't suppose the dquot code can Oops, thought I'd finished writing this paragraph. I don't suppose the dquot code can be restructured to use the xa_lock to protect, say, qi_dquots? I suspect not, since you wouldn't know which of the three xarray locks to use. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
