From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Eeda Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:55:47 -0700 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] ocfs2 fix o2dlm dlm run purgelist In-Reply-To: <4C1A35C6.1060705@oracle.com> References: <1276663383-8238-1-git-send-email-srinivas.eeda@oracle.com> <4C197E0B.1060103@oracle.com> <20100617083216.GA17748@mail.oracle.com> <4C19DE3E.9080701@oracle.com> <4C1A35C6.1060705@oracle.com> Message-ID: <4C1A5393.9080509@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com On 6/17/2010 7:48 AM, Sunil Mushran wrote: > On 06/17/2010 01:35 AM, Srinivas Eeda wrote: >> On 6/17/2010 1:32 AM, Joel Becker wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:44:43PM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote: >>> >>>> One way to skip a lockres in the purgelist is to list_del_init() and >>>> list_add_tail(). That simplifies the patch a lot. >>>> >>>> I have attached a quick & dirty patch. See if that satisfies all the >>>> requirements. >>>> >>> >>> As far as I can tell from reading the code, the time_after() >>> check is because they are time ordered. Wouldn't moving it to the end >>> violate that? >>> >> right. that's why I didn't want to move used lockres to tail :) > > > No. There is no need for time ordering. Or, am I missing something? > > We delay the purge incase the file system changes its mind and wants > to reuse it. By delaying, we hold onto the mastery information. That's it. > So, should we preserve this? or purge the lockres when it's on purge list? OR we could just update the last_used and move it to end of the list if it can be purged. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/attachments/20100617/7cbbb416/attachment.html