Wendy Cheng wrote:
Neil Brown wrote:
Some options:
Have an initial patch which removes all references to f_locks and
includes the change in this patch. With that in place your main
patch won't introduce a bug. If you do this, you should attempt to
understand and justify the performance impact (does nlm_traverse_files
become quadratic in number of locks. Is that acceptable?).
Change the first patch to explicitly update f_count if you bypass the
call to nlm_inspect_file.
something else???
Let's see what hch says in another email... will come back to this soon.
Will do a quick and dirty performance measure tomorrow when I get to the
office. Then we'll go from there.
-- Wendy
