| To: | Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: simplify xfs_ail_max |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Dec 2013 02:07:21 -0800 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <52B9829A.10804@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <52B9829A.10804@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 08:48:26PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote: > From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > We have already simplified xfs_ail_min() with a new list helper, i.e, > list_first_entry_or_null(), but xfs_ail_max() still remains as same > as there is no corresponding list helper we can use for now. It's > fairly easy to simulate the list behavior of getting the last item > in the AIL, therefore we can simplify xfs_ail_max() and move it to > the header file to make this pair of AIL routines looks symmetrical. The usageof list_last_entry is fine with me, as is making it inline. But I think using the explicit if is a lot more readable than the ? : expression. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: md-RAID5/6 stripe_cache_size default value vs performance vs memory footprint, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: rename mem_to_page to xfs_bufmem_to_page, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH 3/4] xfs: simplify xfs_ail_max, Jeff Liu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: simplify xfs_ail_max, Jeff Liu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |