On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:54:56PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> @@ -349,10 +349,13 @@ int btrfs_dec_test_first_ordered_pending(struct inode
> *inode,
> if (!uptodate)
> set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IOERR, &entry->flags);
>
> - if (entry->bytes_left == 0)
> + if (entry->bytes_left == 0) {
> ret = test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IO_DONE, &entry->flags);
> - else
waitqueue_active() should be preceded by a barrier (either implicit or
explicit), which is missing here and below. Though this could lead to a
missed wakeup, I don't think it's required here, but for consistency I
suggest to add it or put a comment why it's not needed.
> + if (waitqueue_active(&entry->wait))
> + wake_up(&entry->wait);
> + } else {
> ret = 1;
> + }
> out:
> if (!ret && cached && entry) {
> *cached = entry;
> @@ -410,10 +413,13 @@ have_entry:
> if (!uptodate)
> set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IOERR, &entry->flags);
>
> - if (entry->bytes_left == 0)
> + if (entry->bytes_left == 0) {
> ret = test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IO_DONE, &entry->flags);
> - else
> + if (waitqueue_active(&entry->wait))
^^^
> + wake_up(&entry->wait);
> + } else {
> ret = 1;
> + }
> out:
> if (!ret && cached && entry) {
> *cached = entry;
--
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
