Searched hist:b04f784e (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/ |
| H A D | dcache.c | b04f784e Tue Aug 17 13:37:34 CDT 2010 Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
Optimize lookup for create operations, where no dentry should often be
common-case. In cases where it is not, such as unlink, the added overhead
is much smaller than the removed.
Also, move comments about __d_lookup racyness to the __d_lookup call site.
d_lookup is intuitive; __d_lookup is what needs commenting. So in that same
vein, add kerneldoc comments to __d_lookup and clean up some of the comments:
- We are interested in how the RCU lookup works here, particularly with
renames. Make that explicit, and point to the document where it is explained
in more detail.
- RCU is pretty standard now, and macros make implementations pretty mindless.
If we want to know about RCU barrier details, we look in RCU code.
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the
code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So
comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the
LRU or refcount management code.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|
| H A D | namei.c | b04f784e Tue Aug 17 13:37:34 CDT 2010 Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
Optimize lookup for create operations, where no dentry should often be
common-case. In cases where it is not, such as unlink, the added overhead
is much smaller than the removed.
Also, move comments about __d_lookup racyness to the __d_lookup call site.
d_lookup is intuitive; __d_lookup is what needs commenting. So in that same
vein, add kerneldoc comments to __d_lookup and clean up some of the comments:
- We are interested in how the RCU lookup works here, particularly with
renames. Make that explicit, and point to the document where it is explained
in more detail.
- RCU is pretty standard now, and macros make implementations pretty mindless.
If we want to know about RCU barrier details, we look in RCU code.
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the
code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So
comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the
LRU or refcount management code.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
b04f784e Tue Aug 17 13:37:34 CDT 2010 Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
Optimize lookup for create operations, where no dentry should often be
common-case. In cases where it is not, such as unlink, the added overhead
is much smaller than the removed.
Also, move comments about __d_lookup racyness to the __d_lookup call site.
d_lookup is intuitive; __d_lookup is what needs commenting. So in that same
vein, add kerneldoc comments to __d_lookup and clean up some of the comments:
- We are interested in how the RCU lookup works here, particularly with
renames. Make that explicit, and point to the document where it is explained
in more detail.
- RCU is pretty standard now, and macros make implementations pretty mindless.
If we want to know about RCU barrier details, we look in RCU code.
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the
code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So
comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the
LRU or refcount management code.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
|