From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>
Subject: Re: Performance improvements to key comparison functions
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:01:02 +0400
Message-ID: <16624.33598.532028.839701@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
References: <16624.31019.650162.819466@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<20040712212807.A7F6215E85@mail03.powweb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-19590-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <20040712212807.A7F6215E85@mail03.powweb.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: David Dabbs <david@dabbs.net>
Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com

David Dabbs writes:
 > 
 > 
 > > Nikita Danilov wrote
 > > 
 > > Arrggh, I shouldn't post that late in night :)
 > > 
 > > ISO C 6.5.8  Relational operators
 > > 
 > >        [#6]  Each of the operators < (less than), > (greater than),
 > >        <= (less than or equal to), and >= (greater  than  or  equal
 > >        to) shall yield 1 if the specified relation is true and 0 if
 > >        it is false.80)  The result has type int.
 > > 
 > > Of course you are right.
 > > 
 > > Nikita. 
 > 
 > I'm curious about testing znode->version before and then after the call to
 > znode_contains_strict (when it returns true). Is there a reason this is not
 > done e.g. extra call to znode_contains is a small price to pay vs.
 > speculative, protected read of each cached node's version member? 

I don't quite follow, can you elaborate? What znode_contains_strict()'s
call site are you talking about?

 > 
 > David

Nikita.