On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:44:05PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> Ensure that we add/remove the dl_perfile under the inode->i_lock > > Looks like maybe this addresses my question on the previous patch--in > which case it should really be merged with the previous patch for > bisectability? > We could, but the client_mutex will continue to mask any conflicts. In the case where it doesn't, it would be because the existing code is already borken. It really is quite non-trivial to work out all the relationships that are at work here, and to order the patches in a sane way. I'm quite open to suggestions for improvements, but when in doubt, I'm relying on the 'big umbrella' being up there until it is removed... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
