linux-kernel - Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update

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: <AANLkTimgWNkQhZPSysAC+HkdEk7YH4GHj+TH1SO_Diiy@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:22:30 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, aelder@....com,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 13:14 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> >> Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from?
>> >
>> > Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm
>> > struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all.
>>
>> Well you did send me a series of patches to remove it, but
>> unfortunately that was just as you made some larger changes
>> to autofs4 upstream and I wasn't able to keep them up to date.
>>
>> It would be much appreciated if you had time to take another
>> look at all the locking and streamline it.
>
> I have started looking at it but just the autofs4_lock.
>
> As you know, we have some significant autofs changes in progress, so I
> don't want to spend a huge amount of time testing (and the testing does
> take a long time) against source that will be very different. So far I
> can't see that the autofs4_lock will introduce any problem so I want to
> leave it for now and (probably) eliminate it in the new code since that
> will need changes as well and will need to be re-tested.

Fair enough.


> I'd appreciate it if you could find time to reply to David's questions
> about the changes to our d_automount patch series. Although, based on
> our previous discussion, I think he has it about right, but a word or
> two from you would be really helpful.

Yes I am meaning to take a look, I'm a bit busy for the next week,
however.
--
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/