Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:16:47 -0500 (EST) | | From | Alexander Viro <> | | Subject | Re: spinlock usage - ext2_get_block, lru_list_lock |
| |
On 21 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The big case seems to be ext2_get_block(), we'll fix that early in > 2.5.x. I think Al already has patches for it.
Since the last August ;-) Bitmaps handling is a separate story (it got less testing) but with the ->gfp_mask in tree it will be much simpler. I'll port these patches to current tree if anyone is interested - all infrastructure is already there, so it's only code in fs/ext2/* is touched.
Obext2: <plug> Guys, help with testing directories-in-pagecache patch. It works fine here and I would really like it to get serious beating. Patch is on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/ext2-dir-patch-b-S2.gz (against 2.4.2, but applies to 2.4.3-pre* too). </plug>
(Linus, if you want me to mail it to you - just tell; comments on the style would be _very_ welcome)
> As to lseek, that one should probably get the inode semaphore, not the > kernel lock.
lseek() is per-file, so ->i_sem seems to be strange... I really don't see why do we want a blocking semaphore there - spinlock (heck, even global spinlock) should be OK, AFAICS. All we really want is atomic assignment for 64bit and atomic += for the same beast. Cheers, Al
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |