From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8MHRBoH073895 for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:27:11 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D6B5E183C7AB for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id hfdHGjuSCYW0nIeY for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:28:05 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] xfs: split inode AG walking into separate code for reclaim Message-ID: <20100922172805.GD5697@infradead.org> References: <1285137869-10310-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1285137869-10310-12-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1285137869-10310-12-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:44:24PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > The reclaim walk requires different locking and has a slightly > different walk algorithm, so separate it out so that it can be > optimised separately. Yeah, the code was getting far too cruft already with all the conditionals. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs