Locks should generally be released in the oppposite order they are acquired. Generally lock acquisiton ordering is used to ensure deadlocks don't happen. However, as becomes more complicated it's best to also maintain proper unlock order so as to avoid possible dead locks. This was found by code inspection and doesn't necessarily lead to a deadlock scenario. Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx> --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 3ae6394f9265..5e0c987e8fa8 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -2609,8 +2609,8 @@ static int cleanup_ref_head(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, delayed_refs->num_heads--; rb_erase(&head->href_node, &delayed_refs->href_root); RB_CLEAR_NODE(&head->href_node); - spin_unlock(&delayed_refs->lock); spin_unlock(&head->lock); + spin_unlock(&delayed_refs->lock); atomic_dec(&delayed_refs->num_entries); trace_run_delayed_ref_head(fs_info, head, 0); -- 2.7.4 -- 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
