| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:34:37 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20111205091121.GA22018@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20111128082722.604873274@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111128082837.808570926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111205050428.GP7046@dastard> <20111205091121.GA22018@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:11:21AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 04:04:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > @@ -509,46 +518,27 @@ xfs_qm_dqpurge_int( > > > */ > > > xfs_qm_detach_gdquots(mp); > > > > > > - again: > > > - nmisses = 0; > > > > I don't think that nmisses is initialised to zero correctly anymore. > > We do a > > int nmisses = 0; > > at the top of the function. Now that there are no retry loops that's > sufficient. 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. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 09/16] xfs: flatten the dquot lock ordering, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |