[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove_all()



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 <tj kernel org>
> > > Cc: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie redhat com>
> > > Cc: David Teigland <teigland redhat com>
> > > Cc: cluster-devel 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



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]