Are we all happy with this patch now?
I can't see why we fix shrink_dcache_parent() only, why
shrink_dcache_anon() is totally missed?
First of all because anon-dentries don't have a parent. So they are not a real
problem in don't restarting the shrink_dcache_anon() if we waited for prunes.
Since I've reordered the calls to shrink_dcache_anon() and
shrink_dcache_parent() in generic_shutdown_super() they are handled as normal
dentries if they are pruned through shrink_dcache_memory() from the d_lru list.
This looks a bad idea to reorder calls to achieve such a behvaiour.
I would move the loop outside of shrink_dcache_parent to
generic_shutdown_super instead.
Thanks,
Kirill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
