On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 01:40:37PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:50:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 11-06-24 12:16:31, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > > > +/** > > > + * ilookup5 - search for an inode in the inode cache > > ^^^ ilookup5_rcu > > > > fixed in my branch > > > > + * @sb: super block of file system to search > > > + * @hashval: hash value (usually inode number) to search for > > > + * @test: callback used for comparisons between inodes > > > + * @data: opaque data pointer to pass to @test > > > + * > > > + * This is equivalent to ilookup5, except the @test callback must > > > + * tolerate the inode not being stable, including being mid-teardown. > > > + */ > > ... > > > +struct inode *ilookup5_nowait_rcu(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long hashval, > > > + int (*test)(struct inode *, void *), void *data); > > > > I'd prefer wrapping the above so that it fits into 80 columns. > > > > the last comma is precisely at 80, but i can wrap it if you insist > > > Otherwise feel free to add: > > > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > > > thanks > > I'm going to wait for more feedback, tweak the commit message to stress > that this goes from 2 hash lock acquires to 1, maybe fix some typos and > submit a v4. > > past that if people want something faster they are welcome to implement > or carry it over the finish line themselves. I'm generally fine with this but I would think that we shouldn't add all these helpers without any users. I'm not trying to make this a chicken and egg problem though. Let's get the blessing from Josef to convert btrfs to that *_rcu variant and then we can add that helper. Additional helpers can follow as needed? @Jan, thoughts?
