Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:58:40 +0400 | From | Vasily Averin <> | Subject | Re: [Q] missing unused dentry in prune_dcache()? |
| |
David Howells wrote: > Vasily Averin <vvs@sw.ru> 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 <dhowells@redhat.com>
Thank you, Vasily Averin - 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/
| |