The fs_mutex has been killed in 2008, a213501153fd66e2 ("Btrfs: Replace
the big fs_mutex with a collection of other locks"), still remembered in
some comments.
We don't have any extra needs for locking in the ACL handlers.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/acl.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
index 1ba49ebe67da..700a3dfd3129 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/acl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/acl.c
@@ -65,9 +65,6 @@ struct posix_acl *btrfs_get_acl(struct inode *inode, int type)
return acl;
}
-/*
- * Needs to be called with fs_mutex held
- */
static int __btrfs_set_acl(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct inode *inode, struct posix_acl *acl, int type)
{
@@ -127,11 +124,6 @@ int btrfs_set_acl(struct inode *inode, struct posix_acl *acl, int type)
return ret;
}
-/*
- * btrfs_init_acl is already generally called under fs_mutex, so the locking
- * stuff has been fixed to work with that. If the locking stuff changes, we
- * need to re-evaluate the acl locking stuff.
- */
int btrfs_init_acl(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir)
{
--
2.16.2
--
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
