On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:13:17AM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is being > > > deprecated. > > > > > > The conversion isn't completely trivial for recover_idr_clear() as > > > it's the only place in kernel which makes legitimate use of > > > idr_remove_all() w/o idr_destroy(). Replace it with idr_remove() call > > > inside idr_for_each_entry() loop. It goes on top so that it matches > > > the operation order in recover_idr_del(). > > > > > > Only compile tested. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org> > > > Cc: Christine Caulfield <ccaul...@redhat.com> > > > Cc: David Teigland <teigl...@redhat.com> > > > Cc: cluster-de...@redhat.com > > > --- > > > This patch depends on an earlier idr patch and given the trivial > > > nature of the patch, I think it would be best to route these together > > > through -mm. Please holler if there's any objection. > > > > Yes, that's good for me. I'll grab the set and test the dlm bits. > > Hi Tejun, > Unfortunately, the list_for_each_entry doesn't seem to be clearing > everything. I've seen "warning: recover_list_count 39" at the end of that > function.
I don't want to pretend to understand the internals of this idr code, but it's not clear that idr_for_each is equivalent to idr_for_each_entry when iterating through all id values. The "++id" in idr_for_each_entry looks like it could lead to some missed entries? The comment about idr_get_next returning the "next number to given id" sounds like an entry with an id of "++id" would be missed. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/