From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756041Ab3A3VY0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:24:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62125 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753733Ab3A3VYY (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:24:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:24:18 -0500 From: David Teigland To: Tejun Heo Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christine Caulfield , cluster-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove_all() Message-ID: <20130130212417.GJ24014@redhat.com> References: <1359163872-1949-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1359163872-1949-11-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20130128155723.GC16789@redhat.com> <20130129151317.GA11609@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130129151317.GA11609@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:13:17AM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is being > > > deprecated. > > > > > > The conversion isn't completely trivial for recover_idr_clear() as > > > it's the only place in kernel which makes legitimate use of > > > idr_remove_all() w/o idr_destroy(). Replace it with idr_remove() call > > > inside idr_for_each_entry() loop. It goes on top so that it matches > > > the operation order in recover_idr_del(). > > > > > > Only compile tested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo > > > Cc: Christine Caulfield > > > Cc: David Teigland > > > Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com > > > --- > > > This patch depends on an earlier idr patch and given the trivial > > > nature of the patch, I think it would be best to route these together > > > through -mm. Please holler if there's any objection. > > > > Yes, that's good for me. I'll grab the set and test the dlm bits. > > Hi Tejun, > Unfortunately, the list_for_each_entry doesn't seem to be clearing > everything. I've seen "warning: recover_list_count 39" at the end of that > function. I don't want to pretend to understand the internals of this idr code, but it's not clear that idr_for_each is equivalent to idr_for_each_entry when iterating through all id values. The "++id" in idr_for_each_entry looks like it could lead to some missed entries? The comment about idr_get_next returning the "next number to given id" sounds like an entry with an id of "++id" would be missed. Dave