On 01/25/2014 01:59 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> We are really suffering from now ulist's implementation, some developers gave their try, and i just gave some of my ideas for things: 1. use list+rb_tree instead of arrary+rb_tree 2. add cur_list to iterator rather than ulist structure. 3. add seqnum into every node when they are added, this is used to do selfcheck when iterating node. I noticed Zach Brown's comments before, long term is to kick off ulist implementation, however, for now, we need at least avoid arrary from ulist. Cc: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx> Cc: Zach Brown <zab@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
I like it, can we use CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG or whatever it's called for the seqnum check to make the struct a bit smaller in the normal case? Thanks,
Josef -- 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
