| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:25:11 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20111205115021.GA21604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20111128082722.604873274@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111128082837.808570926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111205050428.GP7046@dastard> <20111205091121.GA22018@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111205093437.GA28326@dastard> <20111205115021.GA21604@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 06:50:21AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:34:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Hmmmm. My unmodified tree just has the declaration without > > initialisation, and I didn't find any place where the initialisation > > was added in the preceding patches. I'll go back and have another > > look. > > It's actually in this patch: > > @@ -489,8 +498,8 @@ xfs_qm_dqpurge_int( > struct xfs_quotainfo *q = mp->m_quotainfo; > struct xfs_dquot *dqp, *n; > uint dqtype; > - int nrecl; > - int nmisses; > + int nmisses = 0; > + LIST_HEAD (dispose_list); > OK, so I'm blind. :/ Move along, nothing to see here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: RAID60/mdadm/xfs performance tuning, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests/071 FAIL with pwrite64: Invalid argument, Peng Haitao |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 10/16] xfs: nest qm_dqfrlist_lock insise the dquot qlock, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |