Re: [PATCH v2 14/17] locks: __break_lease cleanup in preparation of allowing direct removal of leases

[Jeff Layton]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:07:25 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:40AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Eliminate an unneeded "flock" variable. We can use "fl" as a loop cursor
> > everywhere. Add a any_leases_conflict helper function as well to
> > consolidate a bit of code.
> 
> Looks good,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> 
> One thing that came to mind after starring at this code for a while and
> then seeing your cleanup:
> 
> the sleep/wake patterns in __break_lease seem highly suboptimal, as
> we always wait for the break time on the first least found, why
> don't we simply take the max of the lease break times, and wait for
> that?
> 
> I guess the case of lots of read leases just isn't common enough to
> bother..

That would make more sense. I've no objection to changing it to do that
though it's probably outside the scope of this patchset.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/