| 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@melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <20061024072054.GT11034@melbourne.sgi.com> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Freeze bdevs when freezing processes., Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | ocean oil and gas offer, Ocean oil and gas ltd |
| Previous by Thread: | [REVIEW 3 of 4] Fix recalim handling in xfs_iget_core, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [REVIEW 3 of 4] Fix recalim handling in xfs_iget_core, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |