On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:20:11AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:33:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > To enable phase 6 parallelisation, we need to protect the bad inode > > list from concurrent modification and/or access. Wrap it with a > > mutex and clean up the nasty typedefs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > FWIW, if you (Gao at this point, I surmise) want to dig deeper into the > comment that Christoph made during the last review of this patchset, > repair already /does/ have a resizing array structure in repair/slab.c. Put it in another patchset, please. Everyone, can we please get out of the habit of asking for extra cleanups to be done as a condition for getting a change merged just because the patchset makes a change to slightly crufty but perfectly working code? Cleaning up this code is not necessary for this patchset to achieve it's goals or make forwards progress. Yes, the code that locking is being added to is slightly crusty, but it is not broken nor is showing up on profiles as being a performance, scalability or memory usage limiting factor. Changing the algorithm of this code is therefore unnecessary to acheive the goals of this patchset. IOWs, put this aside this cleanup as future work on a rainy day when we have fixed all the bigger scalability problems and have nothing better to do. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
