Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:02:30 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
cc: alan@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org,
       peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] revoke: inode revoke lock V7
In-Reply-To: <2605.1197995509@vena.lwn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712191100310.26683@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
References: <2605.1197995509@vena.lwn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1009
Lines: 27

Hi Jonathan,

(Thanks for the review!)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> This is a relatively minor detail in the rather bigger context of this
> patch, but...
> 
> > @@ -642,6 +644,7 @@ struct inode {
> >  	struct list_head	inotify_watches; /* watches on this inode */
> >  	struct mutex		inotify_mutex;	/* protects the watches list */
> >  #endif
> > +	wait_queue_head_t	i_revoke_wait;
> 
> That seems like a relatively hefty addition to every inode in the system
> when revoke - I think - will be a fairly rare operation.  Would there be
> any significant cost to using a single, global revoke-wait queue instead
> of growing the inode structure?

No, that's a good idea. I'll change it for the next patchset. Thanks!

                       Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/