[PATCH 05/12] btrfs: remove useless mutex lock/unlock sequences

2011-04-22 Thread David Sterba
Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |6 -- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 31f33ba..c97ceab 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -756,8 +756,6 @@ again:

Re: [PATCH 05/12] btrfs: remove useless mutex lock/unlock sequences

2011-04-24 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
(2011/04/22 18:41), David Sterba wrote: > Signed-off-by: David Sterba > --- > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |6 -- > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c > index 31f33ba..c97ceab 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c >

Re: [PATCH 05/12] btrfs: remove useless mutex lock/unlock sequences

2011-04-25 Thread Chris Mason
Excerpts from Tsutomu Itoh's message of 2011-04-25 02:25:58 -0400: > (2011/04/22 18:41), David Sterba wrote: > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba > > --- > > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |6 -- > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btr

Re: [PATCH 05/12] btrfs: remove useless mutex lock/unlock sequences

2011-04-29 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 08:12:59AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > This code tests whether the mutex_lock can be acquired, and when the > > mutex_lock can be taken, it try again. > > So I think that it is not a meaningless code. > > Correct, this code is waiting for the current lock holder to finish