From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261305AbVFBJ0t (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:26:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261314AbVFBJ0t (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:26:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:9347 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261305AbVFBJ0o (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:26:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:30:21 +0800 From: David Teigland To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 6/9] dlm: clear recovery flags Message-ID: <20050602093021.GL21570@redhat.com> References: <20050602080301.GF21570@redhat.com> <1117700360.6458.25.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1117700360.6458.25.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:19:20AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 16:03 +0800, David Teigland wrote: > > + clear_bit(LSFL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags); > > + clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_LOCKS_VALID, &ls->ls_flags); > > clear_bit(LSFL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags); > > clear_bit(LSFL_ALL_DIR_VALID, &ls->ls_flags); > > clear_bit(LSFL_NODES_VALID, &ls->ls_flags); > > btw do these need to be atomic? right now these are atomic ops and thus > very expensive... you might want to switch to nonatomic variants if > that's not needed. No they don't, I didn't know about the __ non-atomics. I'll go through and switch, thanks. Dave