On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 06:25:21AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > That doesn't happen because the counter is only modified when > > the inode is moved on/off the list and there are checks to avoid > > removing an inode that is not on the list. Also, the inode is not > > removed from the LRU in dispose_one_inode - it is always done when > > the inode is marked I_FREEING while the i_lock is held before > > calling dispose_one_inode(). > > > > Basically I wanted to remove the strange "inode is not on the LRU if > > it is dirty or under writeback" accounting checks and make the > > accounting symmetric with adding/removing the inodes from the LRU. > > These are protected by list_empty() checks, so should always end up > > with the correct accounting. > > > > hence the only special case now is prune_icache() which already > > holds the inode_lru_lock() so can't call the helper. Besides, we > > don't need any checks there because we know the inode is on the LRU > > already.... > > Indeed. What about adding a > > BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru)); > > to evict to ensure this invariant? Yup, sounds like a good idea. 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
