On 3/25/14, 6:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> 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. And then remove the flag from xfs_buf_ioend which is always 0 at that point ... > Also atomic_dec_and_test really just returns true/false - there should > ne no need for the explicit == 1 in the conditional. Yeah I have a patch to do that as well; I wanted to separate the bugfix from the more invasive cleanup, though - and I wanted to get the fix out for review sooner. But yeah, I was unsure about whether or not to schedule at all here. We come here from a lot of callsites and I'm honestly not sure what the implications are yet. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
