On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:42 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 13:03 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> Well, the test is there to make sure the caller is doing the right
> >> thing. Before we remove it, I'd like to understand why it is failing.
> >
> > Because this is a uniprocessor kernel. So spin_lock() and spin_unlock()
> > both do absolutely nothing, and spin_trylock() _always_ returns 1.
>
> How about using assert_spin_locked()?
Yeah, that should work if we still need these checks.
diff --git a/extent_map.c b/extent_map.c
index 71b1ac1..c68abd8 100644
--- a/extent_map.c
+++ b/extent_map.c
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ int add_extent_mapping(struct extent_map_tree *tree,
struct extent_map *merge = NULL;
struct rb_node *rb;
- BUG_ON(spin_trylock(&tree->lock));
+ assert_spin_locked(&tree->lock);
rb = tree_insert(&tree->map, em->start, &em->rb_node);
if (rb) {
ret = -EEXIST;
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct extent_map *lookup_extent_mapping(struct extent_map_tree *tree,
struct rb_node *next = NULL;
u64 end = range_end(start, len);
- BUG_ON(spin_trylock(&tree->lock));
+ assert_spin_locked(&tree->lock);
em = tree->last;
if (em && end > em->start && start < extent_map_end(em))
goto found;
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ int remove_extent_mapping(struct extent_map_tree *tree, struct extent_map *em)
int ret = 0;
WARN_ON(test_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED, &em->flags));
- BUG_ON(spin_trylock(&tree->lock));
+ assert_spin_locked(&tree->lock);
rb_erase(&em->rb_node, &tree->map);
em->in_tree = 0;
if (tree->last == em)
--
dwmw2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
