Searched hist:c75e8394 (Results 1 – 8 of 8) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | export.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | send.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | backref.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | file.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | ctree.h | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | disk-io.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | inode.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/tests/ |
| H A D | btrfs-tests.c | c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
c75e8394 Fri Feb 14 15:11:47 CST 2020 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu
Now that we have proper root ref counting everywhere we can kill the
subvol_srcu.
* removal of fs_info::subvol_srcu reduces size of fs_info by 1176 bytes
* the refcount_t used for the references checks for accidental 0->1
in cases where the root lifetime would not be properly protected
* there's a leak detector for roots to catch unfreed roots at umount
time
* SRCU served us well over the years but is was not a proper
synchronization mechanism for some cases
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ update changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|