[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130129151317.GA11609@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:13:17 -0500
From: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>,
cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove_all()
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is being
> > deprecated.
> >
> > The conversion isn't completely trivial for recover_idr_clear() as
> > it's the only place in kernel which makes legitimate use of
> > idr_remove_all() w/o idr_destroy(). Replace it with idr_remove() call
> > inside idr_for_each_entry() loop. It goes on top so that it matches
> > the operation order in recover_idr_del().
> >
> > Only compile tested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>
> > Cc: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
> > Cc: cluster-devel@...hat.com
> > ---
> > This patch depends on an earlier idr patch and given the trivial
> > nature of the patch, I think it would be best to route these together
> > through -mm. Please holler if there's any objection.
>
> Yes, that's good for me. I'll grab the set and test the dlm bits.
Hi Tejun,
Unfortunately, the list_for_each_entry doesn't seem to be clearing
everything. I've seen "warning: recover_list_count 39" at the end of that
function.
Dave
--
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