On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Thu 13-08-15 15:36:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking into this again, it would seem somewhat cleaner to me to move the
> > > destruction to deactivate_locked_super() instead.
> >
> > Heh ;) You know, I was looking at
On Thu 13-08-15 15:36:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > So this is just the temporary kludge which helps us to avoid the
> > > conflicts with the changes which will be (hopefully) routed via
> > > rcu tree.
> > >
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > So this is just the temporary kludge which helps us to avoid the
> > conflicts with the changes which will be (hopefully) routed via
> > rcu tree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov
>
> Looking into this again,
On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Of course, this patch is ugly as hell. It will be (partially)
> reverted later. We add it to ensure that other WIP changes in
> percpu_rw_semaphore won't break fs/super.c.
>
> We do not even need this change right now, percpu_free_rwsem()
> is fine
On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Of course, this patch is ugly as hell. It will be (partially)
reverted later. We add it to ensure that other WIP changes in
percpu_rw_semaphore won't break fs/super.c.
We do not even need this change right now, percpu_free_rwsem()
is fine in
On Thu 13-08-15 15:36:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
So this is just the temporary kludge which helps us to avoid the
conflicts with the changes which will be (hopefully) routed via
rcu tree.
Signed-off-by:
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 11-08-15 19:04:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
So this is just the temporary kludge which helps us to avoid the
conflicts with the changes which will be (hopefully) routed via
rcu tree.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
Looking into this again,
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 13-08-15 15:36:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
Looking into this again, it would seem somewhat cleaner to me to move the
destruction to deactivate_locked_super() instead.
Heh ;) You know, I was looking at
Of course, this patch is ugly as hell. It will be (partially)
reverted later. We add it to ensure that other WIP changes in
percpu_rw_semaphore won't break fs/super.c.
We do not even need this change right now, percpu_free_rwsem()
is fine in atomic context. But we are going to change this, it
Of course, this patch is ugly as hell. It will be (partially)
reverted later. We add it to ensure that other WIP changes in
percpu_rw_semaphore won't break fs/super.c.
We do not even need this change right now, percpu_free_rwsem()
is fine in atomic context. But we are going to change this, it
10 matches
Mail list logo