Hi,
The check for BKL in d_move() and switch_names() seem to be unnecessary as
d_move() takes dcache_lock and switch_names() is only called by
d_move(). So, if the callers take BKL just for the sake of d_move() they
do not need to, but if, for other reasons, then that is fine. In any case,
the checks in both functions can be removed, imho. Opinions?
Regards.
Tigran
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The check for BKL in d_move() and switch_names() seem to be unnecessary as
> d_move() takes dcache_lock and switch_names() is only called by
> d_move(). So, if the callers take BKL just for the sake of d_move() they
> do not need to, but if, for other reasons, then that is fine. In any case,
> the checks in both functions can be removed, imho. Opinions?
Tigran, _please_ stop it. d_move() needs BKL. Test in question is a
sanity check _and_ reminder of that fact, so please leave it in place.
Microoptimizations are OK when they make the code cleaner, but here...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > The check for BKL in d_move() and switch_names() seem to be unnecessary as
> > d_move() takes dcache_lock and switch_names() is only called by
> > d_move(). So, if the callers take BKL just for the sake of d_move() they
> > do not need to, but if, for other reasons, then that is fine. In any case,
> > the checks in both functions can be removed, imho. Opinions?
>
> Tigran, _please_ stop it. d_move() needs BKL. Test in question is a
> sanity check _and_ reminder of that fact, so please leave it in place.
> Microoptimizations are OK when they make the code cleaner, but here...
Alexander, in one point at least you are wrong. That one point is -- I did
_not_ suggest any optimizations (especially microoptimizations). I was
merely trying to see exactly _why_ d_move() needs a BKL since it takes
dcache_lock which already protects the lists which d_move manipulats.
You did, however provide useful information, namely the statement "d_move
needs BKL", albeit, without any proof to the truth thereof. So, I'll look
closer and try to find the proof myself.
Thank you,
Tigran
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Alexander, in one point at least you are wrong. That one point is -- I did
> _not_ suggest any optimizations (especially microoptimizations). I was
> merely trying to see exactly _why_ d_move() needs a BKL since it takes
> dcache_lock which already protects the lists which d_move manipulats.
->d_parent