Hi Alex,
Thanks for review! I'll post rebased patch with comments and some
ascii art this weekend.
> the patch looks fine, the only suggestion is to move the following logic
> into mb_buddy_mark_free():
>
> + if (first & 1) {
> + first += !left_is_free;
> + e4b->bd_info->bb_counters[0] += left_is_free ? -1 : 1;
> + }
> + if (!(last & 1)) {
> + last -= !right_is_free;
> + e4b->bd_info->bb_counters[0] += right_is_free ? -1 : 1;
> + }
I didn't do that since buddy[0] is a special case since it is in fact
bd_bitmap itself. Moving that into mb_buddy_mark_free will make code
look worse because of this special handling. I think unrolling first
iteration that handles bd_bitmap looks much better.
Regards,
Andrey.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0400, Andrey Sidorov wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks for review! I'll post rebased patch with comments and some
> ascii art this weekend.
Was the review cc'ed to the linux-ext4 list? I didn't see it. Could
someone forward it to me? Thanks!!
- Ted
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0400, Andrey Sidorov wrote:
>
> Thanks for review! I'll post rebased patch with comments and some
> ascii art this weekend.
Hi Andrey, have you had a chance to post a rebased patch for your
proposed change? If not, it would be great if you could look at doing
this against either 3.9-rc4 or the ext4 dev branch, since we're not
actively looking at patches for the next merge window.
Thanks!!
- Ted
Hi Ted,
I've just posted version rebased to yesterday's ext4 dev.
Regards,
Andrey.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 02:38:55PM +0400, Andrey Sidorov wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for review! I'll post rebased patch with comments and some
>> ascii art this weekend.
>
> Hi Andrey, have you had a chance to post a rebased patch for your
> proposed change? If not, it would be great if you could look at doing
> this against either 3.9-rc4 or the ext4 dev branch, since we're not
> actively looking at patches for the next merge window.
>
> Thanks!!
>
> - Ted