On mon, 19 Nov 2012 18:18:48 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>> @@ -2316,14 +2315,12 @@ static noinline int run_clustered_refs(struct 
>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>                              if (ret) {
>>                                      printk(KERN_DEBUG "btrfs: 
>> run_delayed_extent_op returned %d\n", ret);
>>                                      spin_lock(&delayed_refs->lock);
>> +                                    btrfs_delayed_ref_unlock(locked_ref);
>>                                      return ret;
>>                              }
>>  
>>                              goto next;
>>                      }
>> -
>> -                    list_del_init(&locked_ref->cluster);
>> -                    locked_ref = NULL;
>>              }
>>  
>>              ref->in_tree = 0;
>> @@ -2350,11 +2347,24 @@ static noinline int run_clustered_refs(struct 
>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>  
>>              ret = run_one_delayed_ref(trans, root, ref, extent_op,
>>                                        must_insert_reserved);
>> -
>> -            btrfs_put_delayed_ref(ref);
>>              kfree(extent_op);
>>              count++;
>>  
>> +            /*
>> +             * If this node is a head, we will pick the next head to deal
>> +             * with. If there is something wrong when we process the
>> +             * delayed ref, we will end our operation. So in these two
>> +             * cases, we have to unlock the head and drop it from the
>> +             * cluster list before we release it though the code is ugly.
>> +             */
>> +            if (btrfs_delayed_ref_is_head(ref) || ret) {
>> +                    list_del_init(&locked_ref->cluster);
>> +                    btrfs_delayed_ref_unlock(locked_ref);
>> +                    locked_ref = NULL;
>> +            }
>> +
> 
> In case that we don't remove mutex_unlock above,
> 
> if ret is non-zero, either
> A)locked_ref is not NULL, or
> B)locked_ref is NULL, and it has done list_del_init above and
>   also done mutex_unlock in run_one_delayed_ref().
> 
> So in the case A), it is ok to do list_del_init() and mutex_unlock(),
> while in the case B), we need to do nothing.
> 
> Then the code can be clean as we wish,
> if (ret) {
>       if (locked_ref) {
>               list_del_init();
>               mutex_unlock();
>       }
>       ...
> }

I think it is not good style that locking/unlocking a lock in the different 
functions, because
it is error prone and the readability of the code is very bad, so I remove 
mutex_unlock() in
run_one_delayed_ref().

Maybe I should not mix the code of the error path into the normal one, I will 
send out a new patch
to make the code cleaner and more readable.

Thanks
Miao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to