On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > On Dec 10, 2008, at Dec 10, 2008, 6:28 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 07:04:09PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> Clean up. >> >> The nsm_create_handle() thing is fine, but >> >>> >>> We're about to get rid of the "goto retry" in nsm_get_handle(). >> >> I'm not that interested in removing the "goto retry". I realize >> tastes >> differ here, but I don't see a great improvement. The: >> >> retry: >> look for something >> oops, not there, allocate a new one >> goto retry >> >> pattern is pretty common and I'm comfortable with it. > > Would we need the retry at all if we replaced nsm_lock with a mutex? > nlm_lookup_host() holds its mutex across a kzalloc() call. We could do > the same here, and it would make this much more straightforward. > > Is there any real need for the atomic_dec_and_lock in nsm_release(), for > example? That's not exactly a performance-critical code path. Perhaps not, but I can't see any harm in leaving this as is. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
