Searched hist:c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 (Results 1 – 8 of 8) sorted by relevance
/openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/tests/ |
H A D | btrfs-tests.c | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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/ |
H A D | export.c | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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 | diff c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 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>
|