On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 02:40, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > and it's still racy > > > > damn, and it just booted ;) > > > > I'm just a little bit concerned over the ever-expanding inode. Do you > > think the dual sequence numbers can be replaced by a single generation > > counter? > > yes, I wrote it as a single counter first, but was unreadable and it had > more branches, so I added the other sequence number to make it cleaner. > I don't mind another 4 bytes, that cacheline should be hot anyways. You could use the seqlock.h sequence locking. It only uses 1 sequence counter. The 2.5 isize patch 1 has a sequence lock without the spinlock so it only uses 4 bytes and it is somewhat more readable. I don't think it has more branches. I've attached the isize seqlock.h patch. -- Daniel McNeil