On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 02:57:15AM +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:15:43 +0800, Li Hong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi KONISHI Ryusuke,
> >
> > Three new patches based on nilfs2/for-next branch. New code has been built
> > and
> > loaded successfully, and also passed a light-weight reads and writes test.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Li Hong
>
> Ok, I'll look into each of them.
>
> > ---------------------------- cut here --------------------------
> >
> > From 2c622d0f59782321204bf1fde7eea4a593cc6b65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Li Hong <[email protected]>
> > Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:57:11 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] nilfs2: remove nilfs_segctor_init() in segment.c
> >
> > There are only two lines of code in nilfs_segctor_init(). From a logic
> > design
> > view, the first line 'sci->sc_seq_done = sci->sc_seq_request;' should be
> > put in
> > nilfs_segctor_new(). Even in nilfs_segctor_new(), this initialization is
> > needless because sci is kzalloc-ed. So nilfs_segctor_init() is only a wrap
> > call
> > to nilfs_segctor_start_thread(). This removes an indirect call overhead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Hong <[email protected]>
>
> Looks no problem.
>
> The reason why nilfs_segctor_init is present in that manner is
> historical (just for your information. You don't have to mention this
> reason).
>
> I think you don't have to mention the indirect call overhead because
> it's only triggered in the level of mount/unmount/remount and gcc will
> inline it in the caller.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, there is no inline key word in nilfs_segctor_init(). Unless you mean gcc
will try to inline small procedures if possible.
Thanks,
Li Hong
> Thanks,
> Ryusuke Konishi
>
> > ---
> > fs/nilfs2/segment.c | 9 +--------
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> > index f235fc0..514620d 100644
> > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> > @@ -2684,13 +2684,6 @@ static void nilfs_segctor_kill_thread(struct
> > nilfs_sc_info *sci)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static int nilfs_segctor_init(struct nilfs_sc_info *sci)
> > -{
> > - sci->sc_seq_done = sci->sc_seq_request;
> > -
> > - return nilfs_segctor_start_thread(sci);
> > -}
> > -
> > /*
> > * Setup & clean-up functions
> > */
> > @@ -2814,7 +2807,7 @@ int nilfs_attach_segment_constructor(struct
> > nilfs_sb_info *sbi)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > nilfs_attach_writer(nilfs, sbi);
> > - err = nilfs_segctor_init(NILFS_SC(sbi));
> > + err = nilfs_segctor_start_thread(NILFS_SC(sbi));
> > if (err) {
> > nilfs_detach_writer(nilfs, sbi);
> > kfree(sbi->s_sc_info);
> > --
> > 1.6.3.3
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
