[PATCH] bcachefs: Remove the second call to these function

[Alan Huang]

If the lock has been acquired and unlocked, we don't have to do clear
and wakeup again, though harmless since we hold the intent lock. Merge
the condition might be clearer.

Signed-off-by: Alan Huang <mmpgour...@gmail.com>
---
 fs/bcachefs/six.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/six.c b/fs/bcachefs/six.c
index b3583c50ef04..8fb44a5d1406 100644
--- a/fs/bcachefs/six.c
+++ b/fs/bcachefs/six.c
@@ -491,8 +491,12 @@ static int six_lock_slowpath(struct six_lock *lock, enum 
six_lock_type type,
                                list_del(&wait->list);
                        raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
 
-                       if (unlikely(acquired))
+                       if (unlikely(acquired)) {
                                do_six_unlock_type(lock, type);
+                       } else if (type == SIX_LOCK_write) {
+                               six_clear_bitmask(lock, SIX_LOCK_HELD_write);
+                               six_lock_wakeup(lock, 
atomic_read(&lock->state), SIX_LOCK_read);
+                       }
                        break;
                }
 
@@ -501,10 +505,6 @@ static int six_lock_slowpath(struct six_lock *lock, enum 
six_lock_type type,
 
        __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
 out:
-       if (ret && type == SIX_LOCK_write) {
-               six_clear_bitmask(lock, SIX_LOCK_HELD_write);
-               six_lock_wakeup(lock, atomic_read(&lock->state), SIX_LOCK_read);
-       }
        trace_contention_end(lock, 0);
 
        return ret;
-- 
2.45.2