On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It's not that bad, actually; I think the variant I've pushed right now
> (vfs.git#for-next, head at f5e1dd34561e0fb06400b378d595198918833021) should
> be doing the right thing. It ought to cover everything in your branch
> in -next from "fs: bump inode and dentry counters to long" on to the
> end of queue.
>From a quick look, this looks pretty broken:
if (list_lru_add(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru, &dentry->d_lru))
this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused);
dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_LRU_LIST;
because if that list_lru_add() can fail, then we shouldn't set the
DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit either.
That said, I don't see how it can fail. We only do this with the
dentry locked, and when it's not already on the LRU list. So I think
the "if()" is just misleading and unnecessary - but the code works.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
