[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1425744599-4934-1-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 11:09:55 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: bfields@...ldses.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] locks: locks related cleanups for v4.1
Nothing terribly earth-shattering here. Just a few locking-related
cleanup patches that I'm planning to queue up for v4.1. The only one
that really warrants close attention is the 4th one that gets rid of the
i_lock protection around the i_flctx pointer.
One of the earlier patchsets that added the i_flctx field used cmpxchg
to assign it, but I ended up taking that out due to a problem that Sasha
Levin reported. I now think that I misunderstood the problem and that
using cmpxchg for that should be ok.
Jeff Layton (4):
locks: don't allocate a lock context for an F_UNLCK request
locks: change lm_get_owner and lm_put_owner prototypes
locks: get rid of WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW dead code
locks: use cmpxchg to assign i_flctx pointer
fs/locks.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
include/linux/fs.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
--
2.1.0
--
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