> - hlist_add_fake(&inode->i_hash);
> + hlist_nulls_add_fake(&inode->i_hash);
Please add a preparatory inode_fake_hash/inode_mark_hashed or similar
helper to isolate filesystems from the implementation details of the
hash list.
> + /*
> + * reset the inode number so during RCU traversals we do not match this
> + * inode in any lookups until it is fully re-initialised again during
> + * allocation.
> + */
> + inode->i_ino = 0;
There is no hard rule that i_ino is an invalid inode number. It can
happen quite easily for inodes using the generic last_ino allocator,
and I would not be surprised if there's some filesystems using it as
part of the on disk layour either.
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + if (locked)
> + spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock);
> __wait_on_freeing_inode(inode);
> + if (locked)
> + spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock);
I can't say I like the locked argument, but I don't see an easy way
around it. Can you at least keept the unlocking/relocking inside
__wait_on_freeing_inode so that it's centralized in a single place for
both find_inode pathes?
While at it moving __wait_on_freeing_inode to be above ifind would
making changes in this area a lot easier to read, so maybe you can throw
in a patch for that, too?
> static struct inode *ifind(struct super_block *sb,
> - struct hlist_head *head, int (*test)(struct inode *, void *),
> + struct hlist_nulls_head *head, int chain,
> + int (*test)(struct inode *, void *),
> void *data, const int wait)
> {
> struct inode *inode;
>
> - spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock);
> - inode = find_inode(sb, head, test, data);
> + inode = find_inode(sb, head, chain, test, data, false);
> if (inode) {
> - spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock);
> if (likely(wait))
> wait_on_inode(inode);
> return inode;
> }
> - spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock);
> return NULL;
> }
This is starting to get a rather pointless helper. I'd suggest just
killing ifind/ifind_fast and opencoding them in the caller, possibly
as a preparatory patch.
--
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
