On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:58:07 +0800 majianpeng <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -846,10 +859,57 @@ static void lower_barrier(struct r1conf *conf)
> wake_up(&conf->wait_barrier);
> }
>
> -static void wait_barrier(struct r1conf *conf)
> +static sector_t wait_barrier(struct r1conf *conf, struct bio *bio)
> {
> + sector_t sector = 0;
> spin_lock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
> - if (conf->barrier) {
> + if (conf->barrier || unlikely(conf->freeze_array)) {
> + if (unlikely(!conf->freeze_array && bio) &&
I forgot to mention this bit.
If we need to test freeze_array here, then maybe that test should have been
added in the previous patch which introduced "freeze_array"?
And I think the field should be "array_frozen". "freeze_array" sounds like
an action so it is a suitable name for a function, but not for a variable.
Also I think you probably mean "likely" rather than "unlikely" the second
time???
I rather avoid "likely" and "unlikely" calls unless they will really
make an important difference.
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
