> > if (!list_empty(&tmp)) > > xfs_ail_splice(ailp, cur, &tmp, lsn); > > + spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock); > > Right. I am uncomfortable with the idea of dropping the ail lock here > and then retaking it below in xlog_assign_tail_lsn. Your suggestion > that a variant of xlog_assign_tail_lsn which expects the lock to be held > seems reasonable. There is no risk in dropping it in terms of correctness, the only downside is doupling the amount of lock roundtrips. The reason why I didn't do the version that is called with the lock held is that it would be fairly intrusive and ugly. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
