From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id k9OIQiaG020723 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:26:46 -0700 Received: from ext.agami.com (64.221.212.177.ptr.us.xo.net [64.221.212.177]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 14CC9D1A65B0 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agami.com ([192.168.168.147]) by ext.agami.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k9OIPx2J004609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:25:59 -0700 Received: from mx1.agami.com (mx1.agami.com [10.123.10.30]) by agami.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9OIPr2K012319 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:25:53 -0700 Message-ID: <453E5A0F.4070902@agami.com> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:23:11 -0700 From: Shailendra Tripathi MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [REVIEW 3 of 4] Fix recalim handling in xfs_iget_core References: <20061024072054.GT11034@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061024072054.GT11034@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com, xfs-dev@sgi.com Hi David, I can't really see why we need this test: if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IRECLAIMABLE)) I think, An inode with no VP can be possibly in only 3 states (NEW, RECLAIM or RECLAIMABLE). This check is being made inside (inode_vp == NULL) check. If I am correct, may be we can omit an extra instruction here. It appears that you can see inode with XFS_ISTALE can potentially reach. I am not sure how it should reach that path. Following code just after this assumes that it must be in reclaimable path: XFS_MOUNT_ILOCK(mp); list_del_init(&ip->i_reclaim); XFS_MOUNT_IUNLOCK(mp); Regards, Shailendra David Chinner wrote: