Reviewed-by: Josh Durgin josh.dur...@inktank.com
On 01/28/2013 02:09 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
Define a new rbd device flags field, manipulated using bit
operations. Replace the use of the current exists flag with a bit
in this new flags field. Add a little commentary about the
exists flag, which
Define a new rbd device flags field, manipulated using bit
operations. Replace the use of the current exists flag with a bit
in this new flags field. Add a little commentary about the
exists flag, which does not need to be manipulated atomically.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder el...@inktank.com
---
Reviewed-by: Dan Mick dan.m...@inktank.com
On 01/14/2013 10:50 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
Define a new rbd device flags field, manipulated using atomic bit
operations. Replace the use of the current exists flag with a
bit in this new flags field.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder el...@inktank.com
---
On 01/14/2013 01:23 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
On 01/14/2013 02:32 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
I see that set_bit is atomic, but I don't see that test_bit is. Am I
missing a subtlety?
That's an interesting observation. I'm certain it's safe, but
I needed to research it a bit, and I still haven't
Define a new rbd device flags field, manipulated using atomic bit
operations. Replace the use of the current exists flag with a
bit in this new flags field.
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder el...@inktank.com
---
drivers/block/rbd.c | 17 -
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5
I see that set_bit is atomic, but I don't see that test_bit is. Am I
missing a subtlety?
On 01/14/2013 10:50 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
Define a new rbd device flags field, manipulated using atomic bit
operations. Replace the use of the current exists flag with a
bit in this new flags field.
On 01/14/2013 02:32 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
I see that set_bit is atomic, but I don't see that test_bit is. Am I
missing a subtlety?
That's an interesting observation. I'm certain it's safe, but
I needed to research it a bit, and I still haven't verified it
to my satisfaction.
I *think* (but
I think I agree that the claim is that the onus is on the set, and so
I think the proposed code is safe.
On 01/14/2013 01:23 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
On 01/14/2013 02:32 PM, Dan Mick wrote:
I see that set_bit is atomic, but I don't see that test_bit is. Am I
missing a subtlety?
That's an
