[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101028141949.GB19174@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:19:49 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs: move i_wb_list out from under inode_lock
> + * Write out an inode's dirty pages. Called under inode_wb_list_lock. Either
> + * the caller has ref on the inode (either via __iget or via syscall against an
> + * fd) or the inode has I_WILL_FREE set.
Just drop mentioning of how we got the reference ,it's rather pointless.
> writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> @@ -354,7 +368,7 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> inode->i_state |= I_SYNC;
> inode->i_state &= ~I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> - spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
We don't actually need inode_wb_list_lock here. But I guess we can
fix this later and be conservative for now.
> @@ -963,63 +976,62 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
I think the __mark_inode_dirty cleanup should be a separate patch,
it's rather confusing in the current form.
> + if (was_dirty) {
> +out_unlock_inode:
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + return;
> + }
Please just move the label to the end of the function and add another
goto here.
--
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