[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110302144705.GA15482@elliptictech.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:47:05 -0500
From: Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ufs: remove the BKL
On 2011-03-02 00:13 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This introduces a new per-superblock mutex in UFS to replace
> the big kernel lock. I have been careful to avoid nested
> calls to lock_ufs and to get the lock order right with
> respect to other mutexes, in particular lock_super.
>
> I did not make any attempt to prove that the big kernel
> lock is not needed in a particular place in the code,
> which is very possible.
>
> The code is still only compile-tested,
This isn't true anymore; I've been running with this patch (well, the
previous versions thereof) for some time now. On the other hand, I
don't use all of this driver's features.
> but it should at least be harmless on non-SMP systems, since the new
> mutex is not taken on those.
I think this part of the patch is strange. It seems like a gratuitous
difference between SMP/preempt and other systems to #if out the code
that takes the mutex. This might make problems with the conversion fly
under the radar longer because people with older systems won't encounter
them.
--
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.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