Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 07:21:52 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] kernfs: Remove reference counting for
 kernfs_open_node.
Message-ID: <YmbYsI0wkH01u5M5@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220410023719.1752460-1-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
 <YmLfxHcekrr89IFl@slm.duckdns.org>
 <f2ca9d19-023f-76d9-5c76-6f08ccfbe348@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f2ca9d19-023f-76d9-5c76-6f08ccfbe348@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 06:49:49PM +1000, Imran Khan wrote:
> Thanks again for reviewing this and I agree with your suggestion. So far
> most of the concerns have been around usage of kernfs_rwsem and those
> can be addressed independent of first 5 (even first 7 )changes here.
> Just one question in this regard, should I send the new patch set
> (addressing open_file_mutex and list conversion) as a separate patch set
> or should I sent it as v9 of ongoing change set. I guess first option is
> better but thought of confirming once before proceeding.

Either way is okay but I like the first one too. Let's break it up to
smaller pieces so that we can make progress piece by piece.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun