linux-kernel - Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101021132034.GB13620@amd>
Date:	Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:20:34 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6)

It seems we are at an impasse.

It doesn't help that you are ignoring the most important concerns
I've been raising with these patches. The locking model and the
patch split up. I'd really like not to get deadlocked on this (haha),
so please let's try to debate points. I've tried to reply to each
point others have questioned me about, whether I agree or not I've
given reasons.

So, you know my objections to this approach already... I've got an
update on my patchset coming, so I'd like to get some discussion
going. I've cut out some of the stuff from mine so we don't get
bogged down in boring things like per-zone locking or changing of
the hash table data structure.

Thanks,
Nick

--
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/