On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:10:00AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> +static inline void write_super(struct super_block *sb)
> +{
> + lock_super(sb);
> + if (sb->s_root && sb->s_dirt)
^^^^
When I first looked at this, I thought it was a typo. I don't think we
should have s_dirty and s_dirt as fields of the superblock. how about
s_dirty_inodes and s_isdirty, respectively?
> +restart:
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + sb = sb_entry(super_blocks.next);
> + while (sb != sb_entry(&super_blocks))
> + if (sb->s_dirt) {
> + sb->s_count++;
> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> + down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> + write_super(sb);
> + drop_super(sb);
> + goto restart;
> + } else
> + sb = sb_entry(sb->s_list.next);
> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
I think this could be clearer.
struct list_head *tmp;
restart:
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
list_for_each(tmp, super_blocks) {
struct super_block *sb = sb_entry(tmp);
if (!sb->s_dirt)
continue;
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
down_read(&sb->s_umount);
write_super(sb);
drop_super(sb);
goto restart;
}
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> @@ -773,16 +810,16 @@
> void *data, int silent)
> {
> struct super_block * s;
> - s = get_empty_super();
> + s = alloc_super();
> if (!s)
> goto out;
> s->s_dev = dev;
> s->s_bdev = bdev;
> s->s_flags = flags;
> - s->s_dirt = 0;
> s->s_type = type;
> - s->s_dquot.flags = 0;
> - s->s_maxbytes = MAX_NON_LFS;
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + list_add (&s->s_list, super_blocks.prev);
I'd use list_add_tail(&s->s_list, super_blocks);
> - if (mnt->mnt_instances.next != mnt->mnt_instances.prev) {
> + if (atomic_read(&sb->s_active) > 1) {
I'm happy to see that line disappear. It was mightily confusing.
--
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
-
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/
