[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <170fa0d20810271529g3c64ae89me29ed8b65a9c3b5e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:29:10 -0400
From: "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: why unlikely(rsv) in ext3_clear_inode()?
Please see: e6022603b9aa7d61d20b392e69edcdbbc1789969
Having a look at the LKML archives this was raised back in 2006:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/23/337
I'm not interested in whether unlikely() actually helps here.
I'm still missing _why_ rsv is mostly NULL at this callsite, as Andrew
asserted here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/23/400
And then Steve here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/24/76
Where he said:
"The problem is that in these cases the pointer is NULL several thousands
of times for every time it is not NULL (if ever). The non-NULL case is
where an error occurred or something very special. So I don't see how
the if here is a problem?"
I'm missing which error or what "something very special" is the
unlikely() reason for having rsv be NULL.
Looking at the code; ext3_clear_inode() is _the_ place where the
i_block_alloc_info is cleaned up. In my testing the rsv is _never_
NULL if the file was open for writing. Are we saying that reads are
much more common than writes? May be a reasonable assumption but
saying as much is very different than what Steve seemed to be eluding
to...
Anyway, I'd appreciate some clarification here.
thanks,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists