From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs: move i_wb_list out from under inode_lock
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:19:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101028141949.GB19174@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288266161-28897-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
> + * Write out an inode's dirty pages. Called under inode_wb_list_lock. Either
> + * the caller has ref on the inode (either via __iget or via syscall against an
> + * fd) or the inode has I_WILL_FREE set.
Just drop mentioning of how we got the reference ,it's rather pointless.
> writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> @@ -354,7 +368,7 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> inode->i_state |= I_SYNC;
> inode->i_state &= ~I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> - spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
We don't actually need inode_wb_list_lock here. But I guess we can
fix this later and be conservative for now.
> @@ -963,63 +976,62 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
I think the __mark_inode_dirty cleanup should be a separate patch,
it's rather confusing in the current form.
> + if (was_dirty) {
> +out_unlock_inode:
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + return;
> + }
Please just move the label to the end of the function and add another
goto here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-28 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-28 11:42 [PATCH 0/3] fs: peel back the inode_lock some more Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 11:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs: move i_sb_list out from under inode_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 14:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-28 11:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] fs: move i_wb_list " Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 14:19 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2010-10-28 21:47 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 11:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] fs: move i_hash " Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 14:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-28 12:00 ` [PATCH 0/3] fs: peel back the inode_lock some more Christoph Hellwig
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=20101028141949.GB19174@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).