From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sunrpc: Simplify cache_defer_req and related functions.
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:07:18 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101012000718.GF16442@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101007042946.26629.7991.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 03:29:46PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> The return value from cache_defer_req is somewhat confusing.
> Various different error codes are returned, but the single caller is
> only interested in success or failure.
>
> In fact it can measure this success or failure itself by checking
> CACHE_PENDING, which makes the point of the code more explicit.
>
> So change cache_defer_req to return 'void' and test CACHE_PENDING
> after it completes, to see if the request was actually deferred or
> not.
>
> Similarly setup_deferral and cache_wait_req don't need a return value,
> so make them void and remove some code.
>
> The call to cache_revisit_request (to guard against a race) is only
> needed for the second call to setup_deferral, so move it out of
> setup_deferral to after that second call. With the first call the
> race is handled differently (by explicitly calling
> 'wait_for_completion').
Thanks, applied both of these. But, this:
> -static int cache_wait_req(struct cache_req *req, struct cache_head *item)
...
> + cache_wait_req(req, item, timeout);
suggests this version of the patch wasn't really tested! Would you mind
doing some testing on the version I've just pushed out?
--b.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-12 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-07 4:29 [PATCH 0/2] revised sunrpc deferral patches NeilBrown
2010-10-07 4:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] sunrpc/cache: centralise handling of size limit on deferred list NeilBrown
2010-10-07 4:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] sunrpc: Simplify cache_defer_req and related functions NeilBrown
2010-10-12 0:07 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101012000718.GF16442@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.