On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com> wrote: > > > On 15.05.2018 20:52, Liu Bo wrote: >> The check is superfluous since all of callers who set search_for_commit >> also have skip_locking set. > > This is false. For example btrfs_qgroup_rescan_worker sets > search_commit_root = 1 but doesn't set skip locking. So either your > assumption is wrong or the code in btrfs_qgroup_rescan_worker has missed > that (which seems more likely). >
I'm a bit confused as I didn't see btrfs_qgroup_rescan_worker() set path->search_commit_root. thanks, liubo > I think this change necessitates either: > > a) ASSERT(p->skip_locking) inside the if (p->search_commit_root) branch > > or > > b) Unconditionally setting ->skip_locking if we have set > search_commit_root and removing opencoded set of skip_locking alongside > search_commit_root. > > I think b) is the better option since it provides "fire and forget" > semantics when you want to search the commit root, since it's only read > only. > >> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo....@linux.alibaba.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> index 399839df7a8f..cf34eca41d4e 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c >> @@ -2623,8 +2623,6 @@ static struct extent_buffer >> *btrfs_search_slot_get_root(struct btrfs_root *root, >> level = btrfs_header_level(b); >> if (p->need_commit_sem) >> up_read(&fs_info->commit_root_sem); >> - if (!p->skip_locking) >> - btrfs_tree_read_lock(b); >> >> goto out; >> } >> > -- > 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 -- 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
