On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > */
> > redirty_tail(inode);
> > - } else if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) {
> > - /*
> > - * The inode is clean, inuse
> > - */
> > - list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_in_use);
> > } else {
> > - /*
> > - * The inode is clean, unused
> > - */
> > - list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> > + /* The inode is clean */
> > + list_del_init(&inode->i_list);
> > + inode_lru_list_add(inode);
>
> Just noticed this when reviewing a later patch: why do we lose the
> i_count check here? There's no point in adding an inode that is still
> in use onto the LRU - we'll just remove it again once we find it
> during LRU scanning.
I did it this way because we're already holding the lock. But with the
inode and lru lists locked seperately in a subsequent patch, it is
better to check the count, I agree.
--
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
