Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count

[Nick Piggin]

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:06:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> It is possible that locking can be reduced if some things are verified
> and carefully shown not to matter. I just don't see the need yet and it
> would make things overly complicated I think. Introducing any more
> complexity will sink this patchset.

By overly complicated, I mean, for this patchset where locking is
already been rewritten. It would then be no more complicated (actually
far less) than equivalently trying to lift inode_lock from parts of the
code where it is causing contention times.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/