From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:40:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1375758759-29629-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <1375758759-29629-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Alexander Viro , Jeff Layton , Miklos Szeredi , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Andi Kleen , "Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" , "Norton, Scott J" To: Waiman Long Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1375758759-29629-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Just FYI: I've merged two preparatory patches in my tree for the whole lockref thing. Instead of applying your four patches as-is during the merge window, I ended up writing two patches that introduce the concept and use it in the dentry code *without* introducing any of the new semantics yet. Waiman, I attributed the patches to you, even if they don't actually look much like any of the patches you sent out. And because I was trying very hard to make sure that no actual semantics changed, my version doesn't have the dget_parent() lockless update code, for example. I literally just did a search-and-replace of "->d_count" with "->d_lockref.count" and then I fixed up a few things by hand (undid one replacement in a comment, and used the helper functions where they were semantically identical). You don't have to rewrite your patches if you don't want to, I'm planning on cherry-picking the actual code changes during the merge window. Linus