On 29 March 2018 at 14:35, Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:06:10PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> Here's a second version of the patch (now a patch set) to eliminate >> rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2. >> >> The first patch introduces lockref_put_not_zero, the inverse of >> lockref_get_not_zero. >> >> The second patch eliminates rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2. In >> gfs2_glock_iter_next, the new lockref function from patch one is used to >> drop a lockref count as long as the count doesn't drop to zero. This is >> almost always the case; if there is a risk of dropping the last >> reference, we must defer that to a work queue because dropping the last >> reference may sleep. > > In light of Neil's latest patch, do we still need this?
For all I know, Neil's latest plan is to get rhashtable_walk_peek replaced and removed because it is unfixable. This patch removes the one and only user. Thanks, Andreas
