On 2/8/19 3:07 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 8.02.19 г. 9:02 ч., Anand Jain wrote:
We have killed volume mutex (commit: dccdb07bc996
btrfs: kill btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex) update comment. This a trival one
seems to have escaped.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index fe122e6099ae..8160749cd9ba 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig)
mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices;
- /* We have held the volume lock, it is safe to get the devices. */
+ /* We have held the device_list_mutex, it is safe to get the devices. */
I'd rather have the comment replaced with lockdep_assert_held it's a lot
more eloquent.
I agree if we don't acquire the required lock in the same function,
but here, we call the required mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
just three lines above in the same function.
Where do we need the lockdep_assert_held()?
-Anand
list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) {
struct rcu_string *name;
