From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] writeback: Remove wb->list_lock from writeback_single_inode() Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20120430144451.GF10964@infradead.org> References: <1332284191-21076-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1332284191-21076-6-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Wu Fengguang , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from 173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.166.109.252]:57097 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754893Ab2D3Oow (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:44:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1332284191-21076-6-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:56:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > writeback_single_inode() doesn't need wb->list_lock for anything on entry now. > So remove the requirement. This makes locking of writeback_single_inode() > temporarily awkward (entering with i_lock, returning with i_lock and > wb->list_lock) but it will be sanitized in the next patch. > > Also inode_wait_for_writeback() doesn't need wb->list_lock for anything. It was > just taking it to make usage convenient for callers but with > writeback_single_inode() changing it's not very convenient anymore. So remove > the lock from that function. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig In general this should have the sparse lock acquire/release annotations, but if the next patch changes this anyway it might not be as important.