Andrew Morton wrote: > --- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre5/fs/locks.c Tue Oct 24 21:34:13 2000 > +++ linux-akpm/fs/locks.c Sun Oct 29 02:31:10 2000 > @@ -125,10 +125,9 @@ > #include <asm/semaphore.h> > #include <asm/uaccess.h> > > -DECLARE_MUTEX(file_lock_sem); > - > -#define acquire_fl_sem() down(&file_lock_sem) > -#define release_fl_sem() up(&file_lock_sem) > +spinlock_t file_lock_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; > +#define acquire_fl_lock() spin_lock(&file_lock_lock); > +#define release_fl_lock() spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock); It seems like better concurrency could be achieved with reader-writer locks. Some of the lock test routines simply scan the list, without modifying it. -- Jeff Garzik | "Mind if I drive?" -Sam Building 1024 | "Not if you don't mind me clawing at the MandrakeSoft | dash and screaming like a cheerleader." | -Max - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/