[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020609040420l5c24a48ci2b7b53516e74bcee@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 14:20:43 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Josef Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@...l.org, viro@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/22][RFC] Unionfs: Branch management functionality
On 9/1/06, Josef Sipek <jsipek@...sunysb.edu> wrote:
> +struct dentry **alloc_new_dentries(int objs)
> +{
> + if (!objs)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + return kzalloc(sizeof(struct dentry *) * objs, GFP_KERNEL);
kcalloc
> +struct unionfs_usi_data *alloc_new_data(int objs)
> +{
> + if (!objs)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + return kzalloc(sizeof(struct unionfs_usi_data) * objs, GFP_KERNEL);
> +}
Same here. I suggest you kill the wrappers too.
> +int unionfs_ioctl_incgen(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> +{
> + struct super_block *sb;
> + int gen;
> +
> + sb = file->f_dentry->d_sb;
> +
> + unionfs_write_lock(sb);
> +
> + atomic_inc(&stopd(sb)->usi_generation);
> + gen = atomic_read(&stopd(sb)->usi_generation);
You could use atomic_inc_return here. Is usi_generation protected by
write lock on sb or do you really need atomic ops?
> +
> + atomic_set(&dtopd(sb->s_root)->udi_generation, gen);
> + atomic_set(&itopd(sb->s_root->d_inode)->uii_generation, gen);
> +
> + unionfs_write_unlock(sb);
> +
> + return gen;
> +}
--
VGER BF report: U 0.5
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists