linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file

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: <54F4936F.2070608@monom.org>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:44:31 +0100
From:	Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
CC:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of
 lglock to protect file_lock

On 03/02/2015 04:23 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> These look good at first glance, but I do need to go over patches 3 and
> 4 in more detail.
>
> FWIW, usually when I see "RFC" in the subject, I take it as a hint that
> this is still work-in-progress and that you're looking for early feedback
> on it, and hence they it shouldn't be merged yet. Is that the case
> here, or would I be OK to merge these?

I screwed that part over. I wanted to send them as 'PATCH'. Though I 
have planned to do another benchmark round and see if it there isn't any 
problem left in there.

Thanks for going easy on me, first time looking at this end of the kernel :)

cheers,
daniel
--
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/