On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:57:16PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I've only ported the patches so far, without changing anything > > significant other than the comit descriptions. One thing that has > > stood out as I've done this is that the ordering of the patches is > > not ideal, and some things (like the inode counters) are modified > > multiple times through the patch set. I'm quite happy to > > reorder/rework the series to fix these problems if that is desired. > > There's two obvious ordering issues: first the inode counters that you > mentioned. I think this is esialy fixed by simply dropping both batches > messing with it - we should have the new locks protecting it in places once > inode_lock is dropped. The other one is the clean up inode reference > counting patch, which sounds like it should be earlier in the series so > that we have the helpers in place before touching all places that > opencode an inode reference count increment. Yeah, I thought you'd want that. ;) I'll reorder the iget helper patch to be the first in the series which should reduce churn quite a bit, and then convert both the nr_inode and nr_unused counters to be per-cpu before any of the other modifications and so they can be ignored completely in later patches. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@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
