On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:38 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The inode moves between different lists protected by the inode_lock. Introduce > > a new lock that protects all of the lists (dirty, unused, in use, etc) that the > > inode will move around as it changes state. As this is mostly a list for > > protecting the writeback lists, name it wb_inode_list_lock and nest all the > > list manipulations in this lock inside the current inode_lock scope. > > All those spin_trylock()s are real ugly. They're unexplained in the > changelog and unexplained in code comments. Yes, they are, but I don't know exactly why it is so trylock happy. I'll try to dig out the reason for it and: > I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're > resorting to this. At least get this far. 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
