<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 06/17/2010 01:35 AM, Srinivas Eeda wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C19DE3E.9080701@oracle.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
On 6/17/2010 1:32 AM, Joel Becker wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20100617083216.GA17748@mail.oracle.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:44:43PM -0700, Sunil Mushran wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">One way to skip a lockres in the purgelist is to list_del_init() and
list_add_tail(). That simplifies the patch a lot.
I have attached a quick & dirty patch. See if that satisfies all the
requirements.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
As far as I can tell from reading the code, the time_after()
check is because they are time ordered. Wouldn't moving it to the end
violate that?
</pre>
</blockquote>
right. that's why I didn't want to move used lockres to tail :)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
No. There is no need for time ordering. Or, am I missing something?<br>
<br>
We delay the purge incase the file system changes its mind and wants<br>
to reuse it. By delaying, we hold onto the mastery information. That's
it.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>