Prev: anon_vma: clone the anon_vma chain in the right order
Next: nouveau userspace bits for 2.6.34
From: Frederic Weisbecker on 12 Apr 2010 17:10
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:41:40PM +0200, Jan Blunck wrote:
> In this series I've collected the patches that prepare ext2 for BKL removal.
> It consist mostly of cleanups and additionally introduces a spinlock to protect
> some of the superblock's fields against concurrent access. I've addressed the
> feedback kindly provided by Ogawa-san by moving the ext2_write_super() out of
> ext2_setup_super().
>
> These patches have been part of the BKL removal series that I have posted in
> November 2009 already. Since this is more than just removing the usage of the
> big lock I repost it separately for inclusion. This series, at least the last
> patch that includes the s_lock, needs to be merged before Frederics bkl-removal
> branch, if he merges the rest of my patches there.


It looks like this is all about .35 material.

This is going to be hard to have a separate tree to pushdown/remove
the bkl in the mount path if it depends on the ext2 tree.

What about putting that with the fs bkl removal tree? Would that conflict
with other changes in the ext2 tree?

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Arnd Bergmann on 13 Apr 2010 05:40
On Monday 12 April 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> It looks like this is all about .35 material.
>
> This is going to be hard to have a separate tree to pushdown/remove
> the bkl in the mount path if it depends on the ext2 tree.

The pushdown can be in a separate tree that can be merged independently,
just the final patch removing it in do_new_mount needs to wait
for everything else to get merged first. We have some other patches,
in particular the one that makes CONFIG_BKL modular that have to
wait for other patches and should probably just be applied separately
rather than merged from a bisectable git tree.

Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Frederic Weisbecker on 13 Apr 2010 16:20
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:31:54AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > It looks like this is all about .35 material.
> >
> > This is going to be hard to have a separate tree to pushdown/remove
> > the bkl in the mount path if it depends on the ext2 tree.
>
> The pushdown can be in a separate tree that can be merged independently,
> just the final patch removing it in do_new_mount needs to wait
> for everything else to get merged first.


Right.



> We have some other patches,
> in particular the one that makes CONFIG_BKL modular that have to
> wait for other patches and should probably just be applied separately
> rather than merged from a bisectable git tree.
>
> Arnd


Ok, no problem then.

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: anon_vma: clone the anon_vma chain in the right order
Next: nouveau userspace bits for 2.6.34