On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:49:15AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 31.10.2017 19:44, David Sterba wrote: > > We take the fs_devices::device_list_mutex mutex in write_all_supers > > which will prevent any add/del changes to the device list. Therefore we > > don't need to use the RCU variant list_for_each_entry_rcu in any of the > > called functions. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 9 +++++---- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > > index efce9a2fa9be..042cf46e4cd0 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > > @@ -3396,9 +3396,10 @@ static int barrier_all_devices(struct btrfs_fs_info *info) > > int errors_wait = 0; > > blk_status_t ret; > > > > + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex)); > > Don't we want lockdep_assert_held ? I'm assuming enough testing with > lockdep on is performed so it will be caught in time if this invariant > is broken. Yes, lockdep_assert_held should enough, this is a development-time warning. Will be fixed. -- 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
