On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:02 -0500, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, William H. Taber wrote:
> 
> > Ian Kent wrote:
> > > We'll need to do an analysis of all callers of the revalidate method.
> > You are right. Searching through the sources, it would appear that I 
> > missed fixing autofs and devfs.  Everyone else just defines a revalidate 
> > routine but doesn't call one.  You may find devfs to be interesting 
> > because they have code to determine whether they need to release the 
> > i_sem lock or not.  I am working on an updated patch to include the 
> > changes needed for these two modules.
> 
> I've looked at devfs before but that bit of code sounds interesting to me.
> 
> The other thing that concerns me is that we may be increasing the latency 
> of some code paths that need to be really fast. I was thinking that 
> perhaps it might be good to try a change more in line with the locking 
> used in link_patch_walk (ie. i_sem free revalidate) rather than that used 
> in lookup_one_len. My only justification being that lookup is called to 
> create stuff where revalidate is called to check stuff. I've been 
> poking around and this change looks fairly difficult as well (I seem to 
> remember you also looked at this).
> 
> Anyway, I'm keen to have a look at your patch.
> Thanks much for your interest and help.
> 
> Ian
> 

Again, I am posting Will's latest patch on his behalf.

Any thoughts on how acceptable are the VFS changes ?

Thanks,
Badari