[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sync_sb_inodes cleanup

On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 21:49, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 11:37 +0400, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> > I did not want to un-const start. It would be required for the
> > assignment move, wouldn't it?
> Well, the const is just a programming convention. It is useful here,
> but just a convention; removing it changes nothing behavior-wise. Your
> patch, though, changes behavior.
ok, I will move assignment.

> How bad do you need to push the spin locks into the function?

The reason is that reiser4 implements its own sync_inodes method of
struct super_operations. reiser4_sync_inodes first calls
generic_sync_sb_inodes and then calls reiser4' function to flush atoms
to disk. If generic_sync_sb_inodes would exit with inode_lock locked,
reiser4_sync_inodes would have to unlock inode_lock after
generic_sync_sb_inodes and lock it before exit. inode_lock is static for
fs/inode.c, so, we asked whether it would be possible to have
spinlocking in generic_sync_sb_inodes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-05-13 11:29    [W:0.033 / U:9.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site