[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080626113209.GK11558@disturbed>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:32:09 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush
requirements
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:26:12AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 02:41:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > XFS object flushing doesn't quite match existing completion semantics. It
> > mixed exclusive access with completion. That is, we need to mark an object as
> > being flushed before flushing it to disk, and then block any other attempt to
> > flush it until the completion occurs.
>
> This sounds like mutex semantics. Why are the existing mutexes not
> appropriate for your needs?
Different threads doing wait and complete.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists