On 23.02.2018 19:31, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 02:30:22PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm cc'ing a bunch of people I know are well-versed in
>> the black arts of memory ordering!
>>
>> Currently in btrfs we have roughly the following sequence:
>>
>> T1:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 02:30:22PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm cc'ing a bunch of people I know are well-versed in
> the black arts of memory ordering!
>
> Currently in btrfs we have roughly the following sequence:
>
> T1:
On 23.02.2018 17:38, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Given this is the current state of the code (it's part of btrfs) I believe
>> the following could/should be done:
>
> Is there benchmarking data to show that a custom lock is justified
> (especiaally given it's going to mean btrfs and rtlinux don't play
>
> Given this is the current state of the code (it's part of btrfs) I believe
> the following could/should be done:
Is there benchmarking data to show that a custom lock is justified
(especiaally given it's going to mean btrfs and rtlinux don't play
together nicely since it won't be able to see th
4 matches
Mail list logo