![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de> wrote: > > > This change might conflict with the NFS patches in -mm. > > > > Hmm, right. Andrew, if you want a rediff against -mm just tell me. I'm > actually diff'ing against lates linux-2.6.git. I'll work it out. Are we all happy with this patch now? <looks at it> Cosmetically, I don't think wait_on_prunes() should be concerned about whether or not it "slept". That action is not significant and preemptible kernels can "sleep" at just about any stage. So I think the concept of "slept" in there should be replaced with, say, "prunes_remaining" or something like that. Consequently the all-important comment over wait_on_prunes() should be updated to provide a bit more information about the significance of its return value, please. Also I think there should be some explanation somewhere which describes why we can continue to assume that there aren't any prunes left to do after wait_on_prunes() has dropped dcache_lock. I mean, once you've dropped the lock it's usually the case that anything which you examined while holding that lock now becomes out-of-date and invalid. I assume the thinking is that because there's an unmount in progress, nothing can come in and add new dentries? IOW: why isn't there a race between wait_on_prunes() and prune_one_dentry()? - 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: 2006-03-09 11:26 [W:0.099 / U:0.110 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||