[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140905093504.215b288f@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:35:04 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/17] locks: __break_lease cleanup in preparation of
allowing direct removal of leases
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:07:25 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:40AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Eliminate an unneeded "flock" variable. We can use "fl" as a loop cursor
> > everywhere. Add a any_leases_conflict helper function as well to
> > consolidate a bit of code.
>
> Looks good,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> One thing that came to mind after starring at this code for a while and
> then seeing your cleanup:
>
> the sleep/wake patterns in __break_lease seem highly suboptimal, as
> we always wait for the break time on the first least found, why
> don't we simply take the max of the lease break times, and wait for
> that?
>
> I guess the case of lots of read leases just isn't common enough to
> bother..
That would make more sense. I've no objection to changing it to do that
though it's probably outside the scope of this patchset.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
--
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