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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
