On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:23:25 -0400
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:06:05 -0500
> Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Instead of keeping a tag on the master tlink in the tree, just keep a
> > > pointer to the master in the superblock. That eliminates the need for
> > > using the radix tree to look up a tagged entry.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/cifs/cifs_fs_sb.h | 2 +-
> > > fs/cifs/connect.c | 18 +++---------------
> > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifs_fs_sb.h b/fs/cifs/cifs_fs_sb.h
> > > index 525ba59..79576da 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cifs/cifs_fs_sb.h
> > > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifs_fs_sb.h
> > > @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@
> > >
> > > struct cifs_sb_info {
> > > struct radix_tree_root tlink_tree;
> > > -#define CIFS_TLINK_MASTER_TAG 0 /* is "master" (mount) tcon */
> > > spinlock_t tlink_tree_lock;
> > > + struct tcon_link *master_tlink;
> > > struct nls_table *local_nls;
> > > unsigned int rsize;
> > > unsigned int wsize;
> > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c
> > > index 469c3dd..364eb96 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c
> > > +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c
> > > @@ -2917,11 +2917,11 @@ remote_path_check:
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
> > > radix_tree_insert(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree, pSesInfo->linux_uid, tlink);
> > > - radix_tree_tag_set(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree, pSesInfo->linux_uid,
> > > - CIFS_TLINK_MASTER_TAG);
> > > spin_unlock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
> > > radix_tree_preload_end();
> > >
> > > + cifs_sb->master_tlink = tlink;
> > > +
> > > queue_delayed_work(system_nrt_wq, &cifs_sb->prune_tlinks,
> > > TLINK_IDLE_EXPIRE);
> > >
> > > @@ -3275,19 +3275,7 @@ out:
> > > static struct tcon_link *
> > > cifs_sb_master_tlink(struct cifs_sb_info *cifs_sb)
> > > {
> > > - struct tcon_link *tlink;
> > > - unsigned int ret;
> > > -
> > > - spin_lock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
> > > - ret = radix_tree_gang_lookup_tag(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree, (void **)&tlink,
> > > - 0, 1, CIFS_TLINK_MASTER_TAG);
> > > - spin_unlock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
> > > -
> > > - /* the master tcon should always be present */
> > > - if (ret == 0)
> > > - BUG();
> > > -
> > > - return tlink;
> > > + return cifs_sb->master_tlink;
> >
> > Wondering whether we need a function just to return master_tlink
> > within a cifs_sb.
> > Could the caller(s) of cifs_sb_master_tlink() access master_tlink directly?
> >
>
> Sure, but accessor functions are generally a good thing. It insulates
> the callers from needing to know anything about the underlying data
> structure.
>
What may make some sense however is turning this function into a static
inline or macro. Thoughts?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
