Re: [PATCH RFC 00/53] lift lookup out of exclive lock for dir ops
NeilBrown <[email protected]> Fri, 13 Mar 2026 11:09:04 +1100
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.ecryptfs,dev.linux.lists.gfs2,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-efi,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-unionfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 13 Mar 2026, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 at 14:44, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This patch set progresses my effort to improve concurrency of > > directory operations and specifically to allow concurrent updates > > in a given directory. > > I only got about half the patches, but the ones I did get didn't raise > my hackles. > > HOWEVER. > > This is very much a "absolutely requires ACKs from Al" series. Al? Yes, I'm looking forward to Al's thoughts > > Also, because I only got about half the patches, and there's 53 of > them total, I'd really like to see a git branch for something like > this. It makes it easier to review for me, and I suspect it makes it > easier for some of the test robots too. github.com/neilbrown/linux.git branch pdirops But if you have only time for one patch, 52/53 is the one to look at. Thanks, NeilBrown > > But again - this needs Al to look at it. Iirc he had some fundamental > concern with the last version - hopefully now fixed, but ... > > Linus > >