On 5/14/07, Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>+static inline void union_lock(struct dentry *dentry)
>+{
>+ if (unlikely(dentry && dentry->d_union)) {
>+ struct union_info *ui = dentry->d_union;
>+
>+ UM_DEBUG_LOCK("\"%s\" locking %p (count=%d)\n",
>+ dentry->d_name.name, ui,
>+ atomic_read(&ui->u_count));
>+ __union_lock(dentry->d_union);
>+ }
>+}
>+
>+static inline void union_unlock(struct dentry *dentry)
>+{
>+ if (unlikely(dentry && dentry->d_union)) {
>+ struct union_info *ui = dentry->d_union;
>+
>+ UM_DEBUG_LOCK("\"%s\" unlocking %p (count=%d)\n",
>+ dentry->d_name.name, ui,
>+ atomic_read(&ui->u_count));
>+ __union_unlock(dentry->d_union);
>+ }
>+}
Do we really need the unlikely()? d_union may be a new feature,
but it may very well be possible that someone puts the bigger
part of his/her files under a union. And when d_unions get
stable, people will probably begin making their root filesystem
unioned for livecds, and then unlikely() will rather be a
likely penalty. My stance: just
if (dentry != NULL && dentry->d_union != NULL)
This also goes for union_trylock.
Good question. My intention was that since most of the union code
costs performance (stack traversal, readdir) I optimize for the normal
(not unified) case.
>+static inline int union_trylock(struct dentry *dentry)
>+{
>+ int locked = 1;
>+
>+ if (unlikely(dentry && dentry->d_union)) {
>+ UM_DEBUG_LOCK("\"%s\" try locking %p (count=%d)\n",
>+ dentry->d_name.name, dentry->d_union,
>+ atomic_read(&dentry->d_union->u_count));
>+ BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&dentry->d_union->u_count));
>+ locked = mutex_trylock(&dentry->d_union->u_mutex);
>+ UM_DEBUG_LOCK("\"%s\" trylock %p %s\n", dentry->d_name.name,
>+ dentry->d_union,
>+ locked ? "succeeded" : "failed");
>+ }
>+ return (locked ? 1 : 0);
>+}
return locked ? 1 : 0
or even
return !!locked;
or since we're just passing up from mutex_trylock:
return locked;
?
Ahh, this seems to be a left-over of the semaphore -> mutex conversion.
>+/*
>+ * This is a *I can't get no sleep* helper
More commonly known as "insomnia". :)
:)
Before I forget this: thank you (and Badari) for reviewing the patches!
Cheers,
Jan
-
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]
