From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oAFLYgeQ179191 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:34:42 -0600 Received: from estes.americas.sgi.com (estes.americas.sgi.com [128.162.236.10]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99ADAAC002 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:36:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CE1A7CE.7040905@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:36:14 -0600 From: Bill Kendall MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] xfsrestore: cleanup node allocation References: <20101105163500.747192954@sgi.com> <20101105163643.987306372@sgi.com> <1289853509.2199.224.camel@doink> In-Reply-To: <1289853509.2199.224.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: aelder@sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 11/15/2010 02:38 PM, Alex Elder wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 11:35 -0500, wkendall@sgi.com wrote: >> plain text document attachment (node_alloc_cleanup) >> Simplify the node allocation code. The current code takes some >> number of nodes from a new segment and links them into the >> freelist whenever the freelist is depleted. There's no reason >> to put the new nodes on the freelist, we can just allocate the >> next available new node as needed. This also saves a trip through >> win_map/win_unmap if there are no nodes on the freelist (the >> common case). > > Prior to your change, a node allocated off the "virgin" > segment got zeroed before it gets returned for use. Your > change eliminates that. Is that OK? There's a wrapper function, Node_alloc, through which all callers allocate nodes. Node_alloc initializes each field. So this is okay. > > You also dropped a few TREE_DEBUG messages. Were they > not useful? (Just curious.) I did not find them useful (though probably should have mentioned it in the commit message.) Bill > > Otherwise looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Alex Elder > >> Signed-off-by: Bill Kendall > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs