Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super

From: "Balbir Singh" <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: "Neil Brown" <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
	"Olaf Hering" <olh@suse.de>, "Jan Blunck" <jblunck@suse.de>,
	"Kirill Korotaev" <dev@openvz.org>,
	"Al Viro" <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 08:19:26 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <661de9470603061849t470b0709v1987385c9845710e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17420.59580.915759.44913@cse.unsw.edu.au>

> No I haven't.  I like it.
>  - Holding the semaphore shouldn't be a problem.
>  - calling down_read_trylock ought to be fast
>  - I *think* the unwanted calls to prune_dcache are always under
>    PF_MEMALLOC - they certainly seem to be.
>
> And it is a nice small change.
> Have you had any other feedback on this?
>
>

Thanks, I do not have any feedback on it, but I am certainly hungry for it :-)

> >
> > Some top of the head feedback below. Will try and do a detailed review later.
> >
>
> > > +               /* avoid further wakeups */
> > > +               sb->s_pending_iputs = 65000;
> >
> > This looks a bit ugly, what is 65000?
>
> Just the first big number that came to by head... probably not needed.
>

ok, I would rather use a const or a #define and hide it under a
meaningful name, with comments. If it is not needed, then nothing like
avoiding magic numbers.

>
> NeilBrown
>