[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131203133755.GJ10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:37:55 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
mhocko@...e.cz, dchinner@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org, glommer@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 05/18] fs: do not use destroy_super() in
alloc_super() fail path
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:23:01PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> Actually, I'm not going to modify the list_lru structure, because I
> think it's good as it is. I'd like to substitute it with a new
> structure, memcg_list_lru, only in those places where this functionality
> (per-memcg scanning) is really needed. This new structure would look
> like this:
>
> struct memcg_list_lru {
> struct list_lru global_lru;
> struct list_lru **memcg_lrus;
> struct list_head list;
> void *old_lrus;
> }
>
> Since old_lrus and memcg_lrus can be NULL under normal operation, in
> memcg_list_lru_destroy() I'd have to check either the list or the
> global_lru field, i.e. it would look like:
>
> if (!list.next)
> /* has not been initialized */
> return;
>
> or
... or just use hlist_head.
--
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