Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:59:07 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        miklos@szeredi.hu, ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        sfr@canb.auug.org.au, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement
Message-ID: <X9zDu15MvJP3NU8K@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <3e97846b52a46759c414bff855e49b07f0d908fc.camel@themaw.net>
 <CAC2o3DLGtx15cgra3Y92UBdQRBKGckqOkDmwBV-aV-EpUqO5SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <efb7469c7bad2f6458c9a537b8e3623e7c303c21.camel@themaw.net>
 <da4f730bbbb20c0920599ca5afc316e2c092b7d8.camel@themaw.net>
 <CAC2o3DJsvB6kj=S6D3q+_OBjgez9Q9B5s3-_gjUjaKmb2MkTHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c4002127c72c07a00e8ba0fae6b0ebf5ba8e08e7.camel@themaw.net>
 <a39b73a53778094279522f1665be01ce15fb21f4.camel@themaw.net>
 <c8a6c9adc3651e64cf694f580a8cb3d87d7cb893.camel@themaw.net>
 <X9t1xVTZ/ApIvPMg@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <67a3012a6a215001c8be9344aee1c99897ff8b7e.camel@themaw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <67a3012a6a215001c8be9344aee1c99897ff8b7e.camel@themaw.net>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:36:21PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> Sounds like your saying it would be ok to add a lock to the
> attrs structure, am I correct?

Yeah, adding a lock to attrs is a lot less of a problem and it looks like
it's gonna have to be either that or hashed locks, which might actually make
sense if we're worried about the size of attrs (I don't think we need to).

Thanks.

-- 
tejun