[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d2io3pzs.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:39:19 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] vfs: More precise tests in d_invalidate
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> But when shrink_dcache_parent and check_submounts_and_drop are
> effectiely the same function I can't possibly see how you can argue how
> the locking has changed or that I am trying to hide things.
And in particular the only locking change that I can see at all is that
d_walk takes read_seqbegin_or_lock before checking the if the d_subdirs
list is empty, which is just an extra cache line read.
Which in practical terms appears like I have removed unnecessary special
cases in favor less code. Which I think if anything should perform
better just because there is less code to run, and what is happening is
less obfuscated.
Eric
--
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