On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:49:45 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 08:17:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > The problem with keeping them in the caller is that it defeats the main > > purpose of the patch. The idea here is to make sure that we keep the > > stateids in the IDR tree for as long as possible to help ensure > > uniqueness. If we keep it in the caller, we're still removing the stateids > > from the IDR hash earlier than we should, and that's a larger potential > > for collisions. > > I don't understand how that has anything to do with doing the call > in either nfs4_free_stid or it's two caller. For the open and lock > stateids nothing changes in either case, and for delegations we > move from destroy_(revoked_)delegation to the final put in > nfs4_put_delegation for both variants. While I'd normally prefer > what you do in the patch it just seems like churn with the further > changes. > Ahh ok. I misunderstood what you were suggesting. Moving it into the actual callers of nfs4_free_stid is fine. Unfortunately, that creates a pile of merge conflicts in the later patches. I'll just go ahead and change that and resend all of the delegation patches that Bruce hasn't merged yet. Stay tuned... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
