On 28.05.2018 17:21, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 01:27:50PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2018年05月18日 11:00, Liu Bo wrote: >>> The check is superfluous since all of callers who set search_for_commit >>> also have skip_locking set. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx> >> >> Although more obvious comment about search_commit_root and skip_locking >> in ctree.h will be much better. > > Not only a comment but also an ASSERT, this is too easy to get wrong. > That all currenct callers do search_commit_root + skip_locking will not > catch any future callers. And there was an example reported. How about my initial suggestion of setting skip)_locking in btrfs_search_slot if we see commit_root set? Let's try and make the life of callers as easier as possible. > -- > 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 > -- 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
