On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
> I've been looking into simplifying the locking, as it's unclear what's
> covered by the long term lock (B_BUSY) and the short term lock
> (b_interlock). One thing I'd like to do is replace b_interlock with a
> pointer to the interlock for the vnode that the buffer is currently
> associated with.

Is it really a good idea to make the vnode locking even more
complicated?

Joerg