Re: [PATCH 4/6] shmem: prepare shmem quota infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Carlos!

On Tue 04-04-23 15:48:36, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > > +	if (!dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit &&
> > > +	    !dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit &&
> > > +	    !dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_ihardlimit &&
> > > +	    !dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_isoftlimit)
> > > +		set_bit(DQ_FAKE_B, &dquot->dq_flags);
> > > +	spin_unlock(&dquot->dq_dqb_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Make sure flags update is visible after dquot has been filled */
> > > +	smp_mb__before_atomic();
> > > +	set_bit(DQ_ACTIVE_B, &dquot->dq_flags);
> > 
> > I'm slightly wondering whether we shouldn't have a dquot_mark_active()
> > helper for this to hide the barrier details...
> 
> This sounds good to me, would be ok for you if I simply add this to my todo
> list, and do it once this series is merged? I'd rather avoid to add more patches
> to the series now adding more review overhead.
> I can send a new patch later creating a new helper and replacing all
> set_bit(DQ_ACTIVE_B, ...) calls with the new helper.

Yes, sounds fine to me.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux