> -STATIC void
> +static inline void
> xfs_buf_lru_add(
> struct xfs_buf *bp)
> {
> - struct xfs_buftarg *btp = bp->b_target;
> -
> - spin_lock(&btp->bt_lru_lock);
> - if (list_empty(&bp->b_lru)) {
> + if (list_lru_add(&bp->b_target->bt_lru, &bp->b_lru))
> atomic_inc(&bp->b_hold);
> - list_add_tail(&bp->b_lru, &btp->bt_lru);
> - btp->bt_lru_nr++;
> - }
> - spin_unlock(&btp->bt_lru_lock);
> }
Is there any point in keeping this wrapper?
> +static inline void
> xfs_buf_lru_del(
> struct xfs_buf *bp)
> {
> if (list_empty(&bp->b_lru))
> return;
>
> + list_lru_del(&bp->b_target->bt_lru, &bp->b_lru);
> }
It seems like all callers of list_lru_del really want the unlocked
check. Out of your current set only two of the inode.c callers
are missing it, but given that those set I_FREEING first they should
be safe to do it as well. What do you think about pulling
the unlocked check into list_lru_del?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>