On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:50:20AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > Something like this (works OK for me)... Yeah, that should work for now. But long-term we really need to redo direct I/O locking to have a common scheme for all filesystems. I've heard birds whistling RH patches yet another scheme into RHEL4 for GFS an it's definitly already far too complex now. - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Suparna Bhattacharya <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- References:
- [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Suzuki <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
- [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 03/03] Unmapped: Add guarantee code
- Next by Date: Re: KERNEL: assertion (!sk->sk_forward_alloc) failed
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Badness in __mutex_unlock_slowpath with XFS stress tests
- Index(es):
 |