Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1315771
| From | Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers |
| Date | 2016-01-23 23:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qUfah-405-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qU7Pu-48H-63@gated-at.bofh.it> <qUf0B-3TP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 09:34:56AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 02:58:54PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > ->i_mutex wrappers (with small prereq in lustre), fix for too > > Please explain, Al? > > I haven't heard anything about there being i_mutex changes pending, > and this commit says "over the coming cycle ->i_mutex will become > rwsem". That's a complete surprise to me, and not something that > should be done with no warning. > > What's the locking model? How are filesystems supposed to use it? > Are they even allowed to use read-mode locking, and if so, what > operations is it going to be safe to hold the lock in read mode? > > Why is this change considered valid now, when previously there's > always been significant push-back to any suggestion that we should > make the i_mutex a rwsem so we can do shared read-only access > locking on inode operations? FWIW, I'm not opposed to making such a locking change - I'm more concerned about the fact I'm finding out about plans for such a fundamental locking change from a pull request on the last day of a merge window.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-23 16:00 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-23 23:40 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-23 23:50 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-24 00:20 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-24 00:40 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-24 02:00 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-24 02:50 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-24 08:10 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-24 08:50 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-01-24 00:50 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-24 01:30 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-01-24 02:30 +0100
Re: [git pull] vfs.git - including i_mutex wrappers Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-01-24 08:20 +0100
csiph-web