[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Q] missing unused dentry in prune_dcache()?
    David Howells wrote:
    > Vasily Averin <> wrote:
    >> The patch adds this dentry into tail of the dentry_unused list.
    > I think that's reasonable. I wonder if we can avoid removing it from the list
    > in the first place, but I suspect it's less optimal.

    Could you please explain this place in details, I do not understand why tail of
    the list is better than head.
    Also I do not understand why we should go to out in this case. Why we cannot use
    next dentry in the list instead?

    > Acked-By: David Howells <>

    Thank you,
    Vasily Averin
    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: 2006-10-25 16:01    [W:0.317 / U:17.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site