From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: factor inode disposal Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:55:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20101027075520.GA11384@infradead.org> References: <1288153384-8878-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1288153384-8878-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:53976 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757527Ab0J0Hz2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 03:55:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1288153384-8878-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > /* > + * Free the inode passed in, removing it from the lists it is still connected > + * to but avoiding unnecessary lock round-trips for the lists it is no longer > + * on. > + * > + * An inode must already be marked I_FREEING so that we avoid the inode being > + * moved back onto lists if we race with other code that manipulates the lists > + * (e.g. writeback_single_inode_inode). The caller is responsisble for setting this. Too long line. > + */ > +static void dispose_one_inode(struct inode *inode) > +{ > + BUG_ON(!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)); > + > + spin_lock(&inode_lock); > + list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list); > + __remove_inode_hash(inode); > + __inode_sb_list_del(inode); > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > + > + evict(inode); > + > + wake_up_inode(inode); > + BUG_ON(inode->i_state != (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR)); > + destroy_inode(inode); > +} As this is the only caller of evict left I think the code should just be added to evict instead of a new function. Also the hash removal should happen after evict, so that __wait_on_freeing_inode still works.