On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:57:56PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 01:13:38PM -0700, Brad Boyer wrote: > > I'm not sure if this matters, but I have to say I don't like the name. In > > particular, iget used to exist and be iget(sb, ino). A lot of the code > > still has leftovers from this including iget_locked. I'm not sure if > > there is a more obvious name, especially since __iget is effectively the > > unlocked version of what you added. It's something to consider if you > > haven't already. > > Yeah, I can't think of a better name. It would be annoying to introduce > a worse name because of legacy reasons. That is true. I suppose it's been gone long enough that it doesn't really matter. I hope nobody is still trying to port code that old. > > Also, are you really avoiding any locking? It looks the same to me. > > Not in this patch, but I have a patch in my icache scalability series > (which can be broken out of course) that basically does a "lazy lru" > for inodes, like we do for dentries now. > > So iget will become basically what dget is now. It would not have to > check inode state or move it between lists. > > Whether or not we actually do that is another question, but either way > I think this patch is worthwhile. That makes sense. This wasn't clear to me from the original message. Brad Boyer flar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
