On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:21:05PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> @@ -6062,19 +6062,19 @@ int btrfs_delalloc_reserve_metadata(struct
> btrfs_inode *inode, u64 num_bytes)
> * If we have a transaction open (can happen if we call truncate_block
> * from truncate), then we need FLUSH_LIMIT so we don't deadlock.
> */
> +
> if (btrfs_is_free_space_inode(inode)) {
> flush = BTRFS_RESERVE_NO_FLUSH;
> delalloc_lock = false;
> - } else if (current->journal_info) {
> - flush = BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT;
> - }
> + } else {
> + if (current->journal_info)
> + flush = BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT;
>
> - if (flush != BTRFS_RESERVE_NO_FLUSH &&
> - btrfs_transaction_in_commit(fs_info))
> - schedule_timeout(1);
> + if (btrfs_transaction_in_commit(fs_info))
> + schedule_timeout(1);
>
> - if (delalloc_lock)
> mutex_lock(&inode->delalloc_mutex);
> + }
Squeezing the condition branches makes the code more readable, I have
only one objection and it's the mutex_lock. It IMHO looks better when
it's a separate branch as it pairs with the unlock:
if (delalloc_lock)
mutex_lock(...);
...
if (delalloc_lock)
mutex_unlock(...);
In your version it's implied by the first if that checks
btrfs_is_free_space_inode and delalloc_lock is hidden there.
>
> num_bytes = ALIGN(num_bytes, fs_info->sectorsize);
--
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
