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 p9RGgYB1106221 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:42:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:42:29 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: replace i_pin_wait with a bit waitqueue Message-ID: <20111027164229.GA18033@infradead.org> References: <20111019182343.762985925@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111019182421.048260722@bombadil.infradead.org> <1319663253.5239.75.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1319663253.5239.75.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 04:07:33PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > > + xfs_iunpin(ip); > > + > > This initially struck me as unsafe or something, > assuming the inode was pinned. But I was thinking > of it more like an unlock request, which it is not. > It's more like unplugging something so the inode > will eventually get unpinned. (Just thinking aloud > here, nevermind me...) After the next series I am about to post there will be just one caller of xfs_iunpin left. We can probably simply fold it at that point. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs