From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] exofs: remove lock/unlock super Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:29:06 +0300 Message-ID: <502CF5A2.6000902@panasas.com> References: <502CC4AA.6040702@gmail.com> <1345119652.3393.220.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <502CE840.4060802@panasas.com> <1345122611.3393.225.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <502CF259.9040300@panasas.com> <1345123814.3393.237.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marco Stornelli , , , Andrew Morton , , , , , Al Viro , , , , Linux Kernel , , Linux FS Devel To: Return-path: Received: from natasha.panasas.com ([67.152.220.90]:37236 "EHLO natasha.panasas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751686Ab2HPN3p (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:29:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1345123814.3393.237.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/16/2012 04:30 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:15 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do >> the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the >> all thing later. > > OK. But I guess an exofs-specific mutex could be used instead. We do not > have to depend on 'sb->s_lock'. > sorry I meant sbi->s_lock. But I'm fine with the complete drop now Thanks Boaz