From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:47:15 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 Message-ID: <20000925144715.D2615@redhat.com> References: <20000925033128.A10381@athlon.random> <20000925040230.D10381@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20000925040230.D10381@athlon.random>; from andrea@suse.de on Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:02:30AM +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Alexander Viro , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:02:30AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 09:27:39PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote: > > So help testing the patches to them. Arrgh... > > I think I'd better fix the bugs that I know about before testing patches that > tries to remove the superblock_lock at this stage. Right. If we're introducing new deadlock possibilities, then sure we can fix the obvious cases in ext2, but it will be next to impossible to do a thorough audit of all of the other filesystems. Adding in the new shrink_icache loop into the VFS just feels too dangerous right now. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't remove the excessive superblock locking from ext2 --- rather, it is simply more robust to keep the two issues separate. --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/