lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] adding per sb inode list to make invalidate_inodes() faster
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:51:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm.. I don't mind the approach per se, but I get very nervous about the
> fact that I don't see any initialization of "inode->i_sb_list".
> Yes, you do a
> list_add(&inode->i_sb_list, &sb->s_inodes);
> in new_inode(), but there are a ton of users that allocate inodes other
> ways, and more importantly, even if this was the only allocation function,
> you do various "list_del(&inode->i_sb_list)" things which leaves the inode
> around but with an invalid superblock list.
> So at the very _least_, you should document why all of this is safe very
> carefully (I get nervous about fundamental FS infrastructure changes), and
> it should be left to simmer in -mm for a longish time to make sure it
> really works..
> Call me chicken.

Some version of this patch has been in 2.6.x-mm for a long while. I've
not reviewed this version of the patch for differences with the -mm
code. It would probably be best to look at the -mm bits as they've had
sustained exposure for quite some time.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.082 / U:0.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site