From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 07/34] shrinker: convert superblock shrinkers to new API Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:40:46 +1000 Message-ID: <20130520234046.GE24543@dastard> References: <1368994047-5997-1-git-send-email-glommer@openvz.org> <1368994047-5997-8-git-send-email-glommer@openvz.org> <519A51AC.7010609@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Glauber Costa , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Greg Thelen , kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hughd@google.com, Dave Chinner To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <519A51AC.7010609@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:39:08PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/20/2013 12:07 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > > +static long super_cache_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc) > > +{ > > + struct super_block *sb; > > + long total_objects = 0; > > + > > + sb = container_of(shrink, struct super_block, s_shrink); > > + > > + if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) > > + return -1; > > Dave, > > This is wrong, since mm/vmscan.c will WARN on count returning -1. > Only scan can return -1, and this is probably a mistake while moving > code over. Unless you shout, I am fixing this to "return 0" in this case. That's why the WARN_ON() was put in shrink slab - to catch stuff like this. ;) So yes, it should return 0 here. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org