Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:21:12 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/5] seqlock consolidation |
| |
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:44:22AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Aside of that replacing open coded constructs with proper functions is > a worthwhile cleanup by itself.
Provided that those are proper primitives to start with... I don't like it - most of ->d_lock uses are _not_ related to ->d_seq, to start with and then we get an interesting mix of functions that do and do not assume the lock already taken, etc.
Could you describe RT patch problems in more details? I really don't like this solution - interface is overcomplicated and doesn't fit well...
| |