[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:0.094 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site