@@ -4569,8 +4560,10 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_balance(struct file *file, void __user *arg)
/* this is either (2) or (3) */
if (!atomic_read(&fs_info->balance_running)) {
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->balance_mutex);
- if (!mutex_trylock(&fs_info->volume_mutex))
- goto again;
+ /*
+ * Lock released to allow other waiters to continue,
+ * we'll reexamine the status again.
+ */
I wonder if there was any case where performing the unlock and lock
sequence on the balance_mutex has helped?
Otherwise IMO we can clean this up as well. It looks like this sequence
was needed only to acquire the volume_mutex.
Thanks, Anand
mutex_lock(&fs_info->balance_mutex);
if (fs_info->balance_ctl &&
--
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
