Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region

Ok, got it. Thanks, :) 2013-11-20 (수), 17:48 +0800, Gu Zheng: > Hi Kim, > On 11/20/2013 09:31 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > Hi Gu, > > > > IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock. > > In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time. > > Yes, you're right. > > > What i

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region

Hi Kim, On 11/20/2013 09:31 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Gu, > > IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock. > In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time. Yes, you're right. > What is your opinion? Moving the list_head initialization into the lock protection region,

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region

Hi Gu, IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock. In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time. What is your opinion? Thanks, 2013-11-19 (화), 18:03 +0800, Gu Zheng: > Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng > --- > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 15 ++- > 1 files changed, 10

[f2fs-dev] [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region

Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng --- fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 15 ++- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c index f884589..1de70cc 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c @@ -511,8 +511,8 @@ void add_di