From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753106Ab1ASRNC (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:13:02 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34497 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753044Ab1ASRNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:13:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/14] fsnotify: simplify locking From: Eric Paris To: Lino Sanfilippo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:12:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1295455337-20219-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> References: <1295455337-20219-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1295457172.21577.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 17:42 +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > The main goal of these patches is to change the locking order to > > group->mark_lock > inode->i_lock > mark->lock There was a LOT of thought that went into the object locking and lifetime to make sure it was safe, but I agree it is, ummm, complex. I'll look at these patches but offhand I seem to recall that (by definition) inode->i_lock was always supposed to be the smallest lock ever held. I added Al a VFS guy, who might veto these patches just on that alone...... -Eric