[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1370286292.15671.4.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:04:52 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, bfields@...ldses.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, sage@...tank.com, smfrench@...il.com,
swhiteho@...hat.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, piastryyy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] locks: scalability improvements for file
locking
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 23:07 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This is not the first attempt at doing this. The conversion to the
> i_lock was originally attempted by Bruce Fields a few years ago. His
> approach was NAK'ed since it involved ripping out the deadlock
> detection. People also really seem to like /proc/locks for debugging, so
> keeping that in is probably worthwhile.
Yep, we need to keep this. FWIW, lslocks(8) relies on /proc/locks.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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