From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:56357 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750856Ab3AWGcu (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:32:50 -0500 Message-ID: <50FF8437.3010703@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:33:27 +0800 From: Miao Xie Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bo.li.liu@oracle.com CC: Linux Btrfs , Alex Lyakas Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Btrfs: fix repeated delalloc work allocation References: <50FE6E9C.2040803@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130122142414.GA15978@liubo> <50FF50EF.9010907@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130123035647.GB17162@liubo.jp.oracle.com> <50FF6AC1.6030602@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130123060618.GC17162@liubo.jp.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <20130123060618.GC17162@liubo.jp.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:06:21 +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:44:49PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> No, we can't. The other tasks which flush the delalloc data may remove the inode >> from the delalloc list/splice list. If we release the lock, we will meet the race >> between list traversing and list_del(). > > OK, then please merge patch 1 and 4 so that we can backport 1 less patch > at least. I don't think we should merge these two patch because they do two different things - one is bug fix, and the other is just a improvement, and this improvement changes the logic of the code and might be argumentative for some developers. So 2 patches is better than one, I think. Thanks Miao