From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:03:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:03:48 -0400 Received: from geos.coastside.net ([207.213.212.4]:55733 "EHLO geos.coastside.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:03:32 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20010615171632.C9522@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20010615171632.C9522@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:02:55 -0700 To: Matthew Wilcox , Alexander Viro From: Jonathan Lundell Subject: Re: [Final call for testers][PATCH] superblock handling changes (2.4.6-pre3) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 5:16 PM +0100 2001-06-15, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >I think this could be clearer. > > struct list_head *tmp; >restart: > spin_lock(&sb_lock); > list_for_each(tmp, super_blocks) { > struct super_block *sb = sb_entry(tmp); > if (!sb->s_dirt) > continue; > spin_unlock(&sb_lock); > down_read(&sb->s_umount); > write_super(sb); > drop_super(sb); > goto restart; > } > spin_unlock(&sb_lock); A minor improvement, IMO, is: struct list_head *tmp; restart: spin_lock(&sb_lock); list_for_each(tmp, super_blocks) { struct super_block *sb = sb_entry(tmp); if (sb->s_dirt) { sb->s_count++; spin_unlock(&sb_lock); down_read(&sb->s_umount); write_super(sb); drop_super(sb); goto restart; } } spin_unlock(&sb_lock); -- /Jonathan Lundell.