Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So the ACCESS_ONCE() thing is more special than just "done under RCU". > It's more like "really special case done without any of the normal > locking _or_ any of the normal RCU checks". > > That said, the overhead of using ACCESS_ONCE() is basically nil, so > it's not like we couldn't just start doing more of them, and make it > be more of a "any time we're under RCU" kind of thing. Some functions access ->d_inode more than once. Wouldn't that potentially increase the number of load instructions? Admittedly, calls to dentry->d_inode could be replaced with inode = dentry->d_inode, then use inode. > Yeah, I think "d_backing_store_inode()" would probably be more along > the lines, but that's a mouthful. Maybe shortened to > "d_backing_inode()"? Sounds more reasonable than d_opened_inode(). d_actual_inode() might also work. d_lower_inode() might work too. David -- 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
