On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Waiman Long <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I could change patch 3 so that I keep the d_count name, but #define
> > d_refcount to d_count. In that way, I can do piece-meal changes without
> > breaking the build. Alternatively, I could collapse patches 3-11 into a
> > single big patch which will be harder to review.
>
> Since there are many fewer d_count users than there are d_lock users,
> I think collapsing things is the right thing to do.
>
> That said, I think Al is right that for all those filesystem uses, we
> might actually be much better off with a helper function looking at
> d_count, with no macros etc, since they are purely about reading the
> count.
>
> So maybe the right thing to do is to add a
>
> static inline int d_count(struct dentry *dentry) { return dentry->d_count;
> }
>
> helper function *first*, and just say "filesystems should never access
> d_count directly", and make the few filesystem users use this helper
> function first. That way we can do that as independent commits to
> prepare for the switch-over.
>
> Then when the switch-over happens, we just change "d_count" in that
> helper function, and it has no filesystem impact at all.
>
> But fs/dcache.c and fs/namei.c that actually really know about and
> modify d_count would not use that helper function. It would purely be
> about isolating filesystems from these kinds of internal
> implementation issues: fs/cache.c and fs/namei.c are all *about* those
> internal issues, so they shouldn't be isolated..
And all of this can sanely be done with coccinelle. Julia will
certainly help to get the scripts right.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
