Re: [Q] missing unused dentry in prune_dcache()?

[Vasily Averin]

David Howells wrote:
> Vasily Averin <vvs@xxxxx> wrote:
>> The patch adds this dentry into tail of the dentry_unused list.
> 
> I think that's reasonable.  I wonder if we can avoid removing it from the list
> in the first place, but I suspect it's less optimal.

Could you please explain this place in details, I do not understand why tail of
the list is better than head.
Also I do not understand why we should go to out in this case. Why we cannot use
next dentry in the list instead?

> Acked-By: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>


Thank you,
	Vasily Averin
-
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/