>
> Singly-threaded?

Yep.

>>
>> +static void dealloc_nodeinfo(void)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i=1; i<=max_nodeid; i++) {
>> +		struct nodeinfo *ni = nodeid2nodeinfo(i, 0);
>> +		if (ni) {
>> +			idr_remove(&nodeinfo_idr, i);
>
> Didn't that need locking?

Not. it's only ever called at DLM shutdown after all the other threads
have been stopped.

>>
>> +static int write_list_empty(void)
>> +{
>> +	int status;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_bh(&write_nodes_lock);
>> +	status = list_empty(&write_nodes);
>> +	spin_unlock_bh(&write_nodes_lock);
>> +
>> +	return status;
>> +}
>
> This function's return value is meaningless.  As soon as the lock gets
> dropped, the return value can get out of sync with reality.
>
> Looking at the caller, this _might_ happen to be OK, but it's a nasty and
> dangerous thing.  Really the locking should be moved into the caller.

It's just an optimisation to allow the caller to schedule if there is no work
to do. if something arrives immediately afterwards then it will get picked up
when the process re-awakes (and it will be woken by that arrival).

The 'accepting' atomic has gone completely. as Andrew pointed out it didn't
really achieve much anyway. I suspect it was a plaster over some other
startup or shutdown bug to be honest.


Signed-off-by: Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>

Æ'l�.x