[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871sfx0xeh.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:41:26 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gfs2: Stop using rhashtable_walk_peek
On Fri, Mar 30 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 06:52:34PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>>
>> Should rhashtable_walk_peek be kept around even if there are no more
>> users? I have my doubts.
>
> Absolutely. All netlink dumps using rhashtable_walk_next are buggy
> and need to switch over to rhashtable_walk_peek. As otherwise
> the object that triggers the out-of-space condition will be skipped
> upon resumption.
Do we really need a rhashtable_walk_peek() interface?
I imagine that a seqfile ->start function can do:
if (*ppos == 0 && last_pos != 0) {
rhashtable_walk_exit(&iter);
rhashtable_walk_enter(&table, &iter);
last_pos = 0;
}
rhashtable_walk_start(&iter);
if (*ppos == last_pos && iter.p)
return iter.p;
last_pos = *ppos;
return rhashtable_walk_next(&iter)
and the ->next function just does
last_pos = *ppos;
*ppos += 1;
do p = rhashtable_walk_next(&iter); while (IS_ERR(p));
return p;
It might be OK to have a function call instead of expecting people to
use iter.p directly.
static inline void *rhashtable_walk_prev(struct rhashtable_iter *iter)
{
return iter->p;
}
Thoughts?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists