[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110819165101.GA13862@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:51:01 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] VFS: Cache request_queue in struct block_device
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:23:12PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Primarily because of code complexity. We are stashing away a pointer and
> > not taking any reference anywhere. So I am not even sure who is making
> > sure that request queue is not gone and there are no comments in the code
> > about why we are stashing a pointer and how are we making sure that
> > request queue is around for the lifetime of bdev.
>
> Can you point out a concrete problem in my approach? This seems
> rather vague.
I am not saying that there is a problem in your approach. I am just
asking or trying to understand that who makes sure request queue is
not gone.
So if you could just comment two things in code it will help for
a futuer reader of the code.
- Why are we stashing this extra pointer.
- What makes sure that object pointed by this pointer is not freed.
I am not saying that there is a problem. Just that I don't know enough
of code to understand how we are making sure queue object is still
around.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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