On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:27:55AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:18PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > The refcounting before wasn't very clear; there are two refcounts in > > struct kioctx, with an unclear relationship between them (or between > > them and ctx->dead). > > > > Now, reqs_active holds a refcount on users (when reqs_active is > > nonzero), and the initial refcount is taken on reqs_active - when > > ctx->dead goes to 1, we drop that initial refcount. > > I agree that it's a mess, but let's rethink this work on top of the > series I'm sending out that gets rid of the retry and cancel code. It > makes the code a lot easier to follow. (And Jens also has some patches > to take fewer locks in the submission path, we'll want to take them into > account too.) Alright... send it out then. Also, do you know which branch Jens has his patches in? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
