On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 03:29:46PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > The return value from cache_defer_req is somewhat confusing. > Various different error codes are returned, but the single caller is > only interested in success or failure. > > In fact it can measure this success or failure itself by checking > CACHE_PENDING, which makes the point of the code more explicit. > > So change cache_defer_req to return 'void' and test CACHE_PENDING > after it completes, to see if the request was actually deferred or > not. > > Similarly setup_deferral and cache_wait_req don't need a return value, > so make them void and remove some code. > > The call to cache_revisit_request (to guard against a race) is only > needed for the second call to setup_deferral, so move it out of > setup_deferral to after that second call. With the first call the > race is handled differently (by explicitly calling > 'wait_for_completion'). Thanks, applied both of these. But, this: > -static int cache_wait_req(struct cache_req *req, struct cache_head *item) ... > + cache_wait_req(req, item, timeout); suggests this version of the patch wasn't really tested! Would you mind doing some testing on the version I've just pushed out? --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
