On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 04:37:16PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 08:53:55PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > We can use simple enum for values that are not part of on-disk format:
> > tree lock types.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/locking.h | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.h b/fs/btrfs/locking.h
> > index 29135def468e..684d0ef4faa4 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/locking.h
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.h
> > @@ -6,10 +6,12 @@
> > #ifndef BTRFS_LOCKING_H
> > #define BTRFS_LOCKING_H
> >
> > -#define BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK 1
> > -#define BTRFS_READ_LOCK 2
> > -#define BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK_BLOCKING 3
> > -#define BTRFS_READ_LOCK_BLOCKING 4
> > +enum {
> > + BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK,
>
> See btrfs_set_path_blocking() and btrfs_release_path(); 0 means no lock,
> so this needs to be BTRFS_WRITE_LOCK = 1. I imagine that lockdep would
> catch this.
Oh right of course, thanks for catching it. I'll drop the patch for now,
0 could be added to the set as BTRFS_NO_LOCK and replaced in the code
which is beyond what this series does.
