From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755179AbbCBQoi (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:44:38 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:43725 "EHLO mail-wg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755163AbbCBQog (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:44:36 -0500 Message-ID: <54F4936F.2070608@monom.org> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:44:31 +0100 From: Daniel Wagner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Layton , Daniel Wagner CC: Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/4] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock References: <1425306313-7234-1-git-send-email-daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de> <20150302102350.04200e0d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20150302102350.04200e0d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/02/2015 04:23 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > These look good at first glance, but I do need to go over patches 3 and > 4 in more detail. > > FWIW, usually when I see "RFC" in the subject, I take it as a hint that > this is still work-in-progress and that you're looking for early feedback > on it, and hence they it shouldn't be merged yet. Is that the case > here, or would I be OK to merge these? I screwed that part over. I wanted to send them as 'PATCH'. Though I have planned to do another benchmark round and see if it there isn't any problem left in there. Thanks for going easy on me, first time looking at this end of the kernel :) cheers, daniel