>> > 3) Do delayed inode deletion. ÂSee above, but change the word insert >> > with delete ;) >> >> And the reserved-for-the-future-but-not-used-yet flags field in the >> ioctl#21 control structure gets a use: bits to indicate for the >> completion of which of the potential delayed things the caller is >> waiting. > > This is similar to the delayed allocation we already do for file data > extents. ÂIt is supposed to be transparent to userland, and just a way > to more efficiently poke the on disk structures. > > -chris What I mean is, if we want to give a userland way to see when any deferred anything is done, using one wait queue that wakes all waiters on all completion events will be simpler than having a separate wait queue structure for every class of event, at the cost of unnecessary tests when a waiter is woken on the wrong event. That is what is traded off when deciding how many wait queues -- just like locks -- to have; it's a granularity question. Now that there is rmdir of empty subvolumes, though, ioctl#21 might be redundant; I suppose that's your call. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
