From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968F9C433DF for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:47:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B46720684 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:47:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730800AbgGVNrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:47:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41512 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726425AbgGVNrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:47:51 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC25AED7; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 13:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 10065) id 0195DDA70B; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:47:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:47:23 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Josef Bacik Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: move the chunk_mutex in btrfs_read_chunk_tree Message-ID: <20200722134723.GU3703@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com References: <20200717191229.2283043-1-josef@toxicpanda.com> <20200717191229.2283043-3-josef@toxicpanda.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200717191229.2283043-3-josef@toxicpanda.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:12:28PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > An argument could be made that we don't even need the chunk_mutex here > as it's during mount, and we are protected by various other locks. > However we already have special rules for ->device_list_mutex, and I'd > rather not have another special case for ->chunk_mutex. Yeah, we can keep the lock there, eg. for the case when some helper asserts the lock is held.