[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU4i5LDoqXXTgAKtTA8EtGyawxXtY4iavo7NjHCsbX1G8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 15:15:54 +0200
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] gfs2: Stop using rhashtable_walk_peek
On 29 March 2018 at 14:35, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:06:10PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> Here's a second version of the patch (now a patch set) to eliminate
>> rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2.
>>
>> The first patch introduces lockref_put_not_zero, the inverse of
>> lockref_get_not_zero.
>>
>> The second patch eliminates rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2. In
>> gfs2_glock_iter_next, the new lockref function from patch one is used to
>> drop a lockref count as long as the count doesn't drop to zero. This is
>> almost always the case; if there is a risk of dropping the last
>> reference, we must defer that to a work queue because dropping the last
>> reference may sleep.
>
> In light of Neil's latest patch, do we still need this?
For all I know, Neil's latest plan is to get rhashtable_walk_peek
replaced and removed because it is unfixable. This patch removes the
one and only user.
Thanks,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists