Hello, On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:52:33AM +0800, Da Zheng wrote: > netfs_attempt_lookup locks this node and the node is unlocked by > libnetfs, right? I forget a lot:-) So why can the second lookup not > wait until the first one finishes?
I've tried to remove the mutex unlocking code and it seems to work. So, you are right :-) > > It has just occurred to me that it might also be acceptable to not > > lock the .MASTER node at all: after all, it is little more than a flag > > telling the multiplexer to act differently. What do you think? > > > .MASTER is almost completely static. I guess it should be OK if we don't lock > it. I wonder whether not locking .MASTER is still relevant. On the one hand, it would stress its conceptual authenticity; on the other hand, it would require additional code to achieve the same functionality. Zheng, antrik, what do you think? Regards, Sergiu
