Re: [PATCH 02/11] vfs: More precise tests in d_invalidate

[Eric W. Biederman]

ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes:

> But when shrink_dcache_parent and check_submounts_and_drop are
> effectiely the same function I can't possibly see how you can argue how
> the locking has changed or that I am trying to hide things.

And in particular the only locking change that I can see at all is that
d_walk takes read_seqbegin_or_lock before checking the if the d_subdirs
list is empty, which is just an extra cache line read.

Which in practical terms appears like I have removed unnecessary special
cases in favor less code.  Which I think if anything should perform
better just because there is less code to run, and what is happening is
less obfuscated.

Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/