Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 07:40:33AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:37:05AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > One more note: IMO sb list lock is better off inside the hash one; when we
> > do per-chain hash locks, we'll be better off if we don't have to hold sb
> > one over the entire chain search.
> 
> Why would you nest these two at all?

[already said off-list, but since the question had been here...]

Insertion in hash and into sb list.  We *probably* don't care about
atomicity of that pair, but in this case we are dealing with two
topmost locks of hierarchy that might become independent.  That really
can be done as a followup.
--
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/