Lustre devel - Dec 2006 - [Bug 11300] Interval trees for scalable extent lock handling

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11300

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #9097 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


Created an attachment (id=9216)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9216&action=view)
revision2

updated hld, fixed some defects according to inspection result from vitaly.

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11300

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #9216 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |


Created an attachment (id=9342)
Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
 --> (https://bugzilla.lustre.org/attachment.cgi?id=9342&action=view)
revision6

fixed defects per green''s inspection:
1. replaced unsigned int to __u64
2. updated use case
3. add performance section

more detail about algorithm and implementation will be found in upcoming DLD

Please don''t reply to lustre-devel. Instead, comment in Bugzilla by
using the following link:
https://bugzilla.lustre.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11300

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #9342|review?(green@clusterfs.com)|review+
               Flag|                            |


(From update of attachment 9342)
I am still not happy about your usecase section (and you apparently did not
look in the bug 10589 for a good  example), but I do not want this to delay
your further progress on this bug.