* [PATCH] Btrfs: do not pass write_lock_level when processing leaf
@ 2018-08-14 2:46 Liu Bo
2018-08-14 11:27 ` David Sterba
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2018-08-14 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
As we're going to return, it doesn't make sense to get a new
write_lock_level from unlock_up.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
index 41eb47488e75..f032b48094b4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
@@ -2950,7 +2950,7 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root,
}
if (!p->search_for_split)
unlock_up(p, level, lowest_unlock,
- min_write_lock_level, &write_lock_level);
+ min_write_lock_level, NULL);
goto done;
}
}
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: do not pass write_lock_level when processing leaf
2018-08-14 2:46 [PATCH] Btrfs: do not pass write_lock_level when processing leaf Liu Bo
@ 2018-08-14 11:27 ` David Sterba
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2018-08-14 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu Bo; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:46:53AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> As we're going to return, it doesn't make sense to get a new
> write_lock_level from unlock_up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-08-14 14:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-08-14 2:46 [PATCH] Btrfs: do not pass write_lock_level when processing leaf Liu Bo
2018-08-14 11:27 ` David Sterba
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).