Re: Improving RAIDframe Parity Handling: The Diff

[Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost>]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 12:34:41PM -0500, Jed Davis wrote:
> > 4.) Could "lk_flags" be removed if you use atomic_ops(3) to update
> >     the "flags" field of a parity map? Your locking looks safe
> >     (because you stick to the defined order). But I feel somehow
> >     uneasy about this.
> 
> I think it could; at the time I might not have known I wasn't going to
> wind up putting more fields under it, or something along those lines,
> but at this point I think the change can be made.

I think it might be worthwhile to do that because a single atomic
operation will be cheaper.

        Kind regards

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/