Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757223Ab1DOVUo (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:20:44 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:35195 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757127Ab1DOVUm (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:20:42 -0400 Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug. From: Peter Zijlstra To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , William Irwin , Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20110415211334.GA24870@infradead.org> References: <20110415201652.GA5131@redhat.com> <20110415205712.GA13049@infradead.org> <1302901766.2035.39.camel@laptop> <20110415211334.GA24870@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:23:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1302902583.2035.40.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 858 Lines: 18 On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of > > the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it? > > There is not need to use the inode hash for purely in-memory > filesystem. The dcache tells us if an entry already exists, > so there is no need to a lru list, hash or other overhead. OK makes sense, should we then make some common code to share between these in-memory filesystems so as to limit the number of copies of this logic? -- 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/