On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, NAKAJIMA Yoshihiro wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:41:11 + (UTC),
> Eduardo Horvath wrote:
>
> > Looks reasonable. You should definitely add a comment somewhere
> > indicating the uino is protected by the lfs_lock. Locking protocols must
> > be documented or they are
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:41:11 + (UTC),
Eduardo Horvath wrote:
> Looks reasonable. You should definitely add a comment somewhere
> indicating the uino is protected by the lfs_lock. Locking protocols must
> be documented or they are guaranteed to be broken. Have you tested it
> under load?
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, NAKAJIMA Yoshihiro wrote:
> Hello LFS developers,
>
>
> When vmlocking2 was merged, lock and unlock were moved out of
> LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO.
>
> : % diff -U4 lfs.h:1.{122,123} | sed -n 94,104p
> : #define LFS_SET_UINO(ip, flags) do {
>
Hello LFS developers,
When vmlocking2 was merged, lock and unlock were moved out of
LFS_{SET,CLR}_UINO.
: % diff -U4 lfs.h:1.{122,123} | sed -n 94,104p
: #define LFS_SET_UINO(ip, flags) do { \
: - simple_lock(&(ip)->i_lfs->lfs_interlock);
