On 01/28/2014 11:03 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
Hello Josef,
On 01/27/2014 04:59 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
We are really suffering from now ulist's implementation, some developers
gave their try, and i just gave some of my ideas for things:
1. use list+rb_tree instead of arrary+rb_tree
2. add cur_list to iterator rather than ulist structure.
3. add seqnum into every node when they are added, this is
used to do selfcheck when iterating node.
I noticed Zach Brown's comments before, long term is to kick off
ulist implementation, however, for now, we need at least avoid
arrary from ulist.
Cc: Liu Bo <[email protected]>
Cc: Josef Bacik <[email protected]>
Cc: Zach Brown <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <[email protected]>
---
v2->v3:
only do selfchecks with CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG enabled(Thanks to Josef!)
update ulist's comments since they are out of date.
v1->v2:
add RFC title since this patch needs more reviews and comments.
fix a used after free bug in ulist_fini().
I like the patch but it doesn't build since things like qgroups rely on
ulist->nnodes. You need to fix that in your patch and make sure this stuff
compiles. Thanks,
Sorry about if it did not compile.
but I really compiled and tested it in my box, did you apply your qgroup
patches?
This patch is based on btrfs-next without your previous qgroup patches.
Anyway i will double check it…..
Yeah I thought I was doing something wrong but I'm definitely on my
master branch which doesn't have my qgroup patches in it. If it's still
working for you now just wait a bit for me to push out this next update
and rebase onto it and resend. Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
