The spinlock() within the condition in while() will cause a compile error
if it is not a function. This is not a problem on mainline but it does not
look pretty and there is no reason to do it that way.
That patch writes it a little differently and avoids the double condition.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
* David Howells | 2013-04-03 12:55:34 [+0100]:
>> + n = radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag(&cookie->stores, results, 0,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(results),
>> + FSCACHE_COOKIE_PENDING_TAG);
>
>Can you align second and third lines with the '&' in the line above please?
Sure, here you are.
>
>David
fs/fscache/page.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fscache/page.c b/fs/fscache/page.c
index ff000e5..c84696c 100644
--- a/fs/fscache/page.c
+++ b/fs/fscache/page.c
@@ -796,11 +796,13 @@ void fscache_invalidate_writes(struct fscache_cookie *cookie)
_enter("");
- while (spin_lock(&cookie->stores_lock),
- n = radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag(&cookie->stores, results, 0,
- ARRAY_SIZE(results),
- FSCACHE_COOKIE_PENDING_TAG),
- n > 0) {
+ spin_lock(&cookie->stores_lock);
+ while (1) {
+ n = radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag(&cookie->stores, results, 0,
+ ARRAY_SIZE(results),
+ FSCACHE_COOKIE_PENDING_TAG);
+ if (n == 0)
+ break;
for (i = n - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
page = results[i];
radix_tree_delete(&cookie->stores, page->index);
@@ -810,6 +812,7 @@ void fscache_invalidate_writes(struct fscache_cookie *cookie)
for (i = n - 1; i >= 0; i--)
page_cache_release(results[i]);
+ spin_lock(&cookie->stores_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&cookie->stores_lock);
--
1.7.10.4
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
