[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180322170252.GA5542@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:02:52 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 14/14] xfs, dax: introduce xfs_break_dax_layouts()
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:28:11AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I can switch to the for() loop model, but it isn't 'done' flag, it's a
> 'retry' flag. I.e. if xfs_break_leased_layouts() dropped
> XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL we need to retry xfs_break_dax_layouts(), and if
Oh, indeed.
> xfs_break_dax_layouts() slept we need to immediately retry it.
> So, how
> about this?
Ah, with that that the loop doesn't work too well, especially the
continue inside a switch statement is probably not to good. I guess
we should just stick to your original, modulo better variable naming.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists