From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:9235 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752461AbaAZSSQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:18:16 -0500 Message-ID: <52E5515C.20907@fb.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:18:04 -0500 From: Josef Bacik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wang Shilong , CC: Wang Shilong , Liu Bo , Zach Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] Btrfs: rework ulist with list+rb_tree References: <1390633178-2104-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1390633178-2104-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/25/2014 01:59 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: > From: Wang Shilong > > We are really suffering from now ulist's implementation, some developers > gave their try, and i just gave some of my ideas for things: > > 1. use list+rb_tree instead of arrary+rb_tree > > 2. add cur_list to iterator rather than ulist structure. > > 3. add seqnum into every node when they are added, this is > used to do selfcheck when iterating node. > > I noticed Zach Brown's comments before, long term is to kick off > ulist implementation, however, for now, we need at least avoid > arrary from ulist. > > Cc: Liu Bo > Cc: Josef Bacik > Cc: Zach Brown > Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong > --- I like it, can we use CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG or whatever it's called for the seqnum check to make the struct a bit smaller in the normal case? Thanks, Josef