On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics, > so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if > try_lock spins a bit before giving up? Because that will cause this scenario to spin that "little longer" always, and introduce latencies that did not exist before. Either the solution does not break this scenario, or it should not go in. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
