> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 09:48:50PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > + /* > > + * If _xfs_buf_ioapply failed, we'll get back here with > > + * only the reference we took above. _xfs_buf_ioend will > > + * drop it to zero, so we'd better not queue it for later, > > + * or we'll free it before it's done. > > + */ > > + _xfs_buf_ioend(bp, bp->b_error ? 0 : 1); > > > > Out of curiosity, is there any major reason we don't use 0 here > unconditionally? Are we worried about I/O completing before we have a > chance to decrement the reference? I think this should unconditionally avoid the schedule, and while we're at it we should kill _xfs_buf_ioend and opencode it here and at the other callsite. Also atomic_dec_and_test really just returns true/false - there should ne no need for the explicit == 1 in the conditional. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
