On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 06:22:54AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Looks good,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>
> Some minor comments below:
>
> > +STATIC void
> > +__xfs_efi_release(
> > + struct xfs_efi_log_item *efip)
> > +{
> > + struct xfs_ail *ailp = efip->efi_item.li_ailp;
> > +
> > + if (!test_and_clear_bit(XFS_EFI_COMMITTED, &efip->efi_flags)) {
> > + spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> > + /* xfs_trans_ail_delete() drops the AIL lock. */
> > + xfs_trans_ail_delete(ailp, (xfs_log_item_t *)efip);
>
> The second argument should be &efip->efi_item to preserve ty;e safety.
>
> > void
> > xfs_efi_release(xfs_efi_log_item_t *efip,
> > uint nextents)
> > {
> > + ASSERT(atomic_read(&efip->efi_next_extent) >= nextents);
> > + if (!atomic_sub_and_test(nextents, &efip->efi_next_extent))
> > + return;
> >
> > + __xfs_efi_release(efip);
>
> Why not just:
>
> if (atomic_sub_and_test(nextents, &efip->efi_next_extent))
> __xfs_efi_release(efip);
>
> ?
Good idea. Fixed up.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
