xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [REVIEW 3 of 4] Fix recalim handling in xfs_iget_core

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW 3 of 4] Fix recalim handling in xfs_iget_core
From: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:23:11 -0700
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, t-nagano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061024072054.GT11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20061024072054.GT11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060909)
Hi David,
              I can't really see why we need this test:
               if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IRECLAIMABLE))
I think, An inode with no VP can be possibly in only 3 states (NEW, RECLAIM or RECLAIMABLE). This check is being made inside (inode_vp == NULL) check. If I am correct, may be we can omit an extra instruction here. It appears that you can see inode with XFS_ISTALE can potentially reach. I am not sure how it should reach that path. Following code just after this assumes that it must be in reclaimable path: XFS_MOUNT_ILOCK(mp);
                               list_del_init(&ip->i_reclaim);
                               XFS_MOUNT_IUNLOCK(mp);
Regards,
Shailendra

David Chinner wrote:


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>