From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:37:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20130910143807.4c32d548e08d2184061f52cb@canb.auug.org.au> <20130910152753.662599171456233c5f91edb4@linux-foundation.org> <20130910222924.GB13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130910153520.14e49cd32feb16d45eb8abac@linux-foundation.org> <20130910223624.GC13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130910154116.cc4afe048213a779040ea3cc@linux-foundation.org> <20130910224823.GE13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20130910225934.GF13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:43975 "EHLO mail-vc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207Ab3IJXhU (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:37:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130910225934.GF13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro Cc: Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Chinner , Glauber Costa On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > It's not that bad, actually; I think the variant I've pushed right now > (vfs.git#for-next, head at f5e1dd34561e0fb06400b378d595198918833021) should > be doing the right thing. It ought to cover everything in your branch > in -next from "fs: bump inode and dentry counters to long" on to the > end of queue. >>From a quick look, this looks pretty broken: if (list_lru_add(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru, &dentry->d_lru)) this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused); dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_LRU_LIST; because if that list_lru_add() can fail, then we shouldn't set the DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit either. That said, I don't see how it can fail. We only do this with the dentry locked, and when it's not already on the LRU list. So I think the "if()" is just misleading and unnecessary - but the code works. Linus