On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 14:07 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:36:32AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > I would also prefer a locking scheme that didn't rely on the BKL. That > > > said, except for this race: > > > > I would as well :) But I don't know the locking code good enough to > > start fixing. Besides, even if I send a patch series that handles this, > > I don't think that anyone will accept it, due to "this changes too much > > code", "can you prove you fixed all the places" and so on... > > Several people have expressed interest in a locking scheme for locks.c > (and probably lockd) that doesn't depend on BKL, so I don't think it > would be ignored. But, yes, it would have to be done very carefully; > there have been at least one or two previous attempts that failed.
Another long-term project might be to convert the current list of locks into a more scalable structure: something like an rbtree might be more appropriate for really large numbers of locks. Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
