Those two members are all protected by
btrfs_fs_info::qgroup_rescan_lock, thus no need for the extra spinlock.
Suggested-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
---
Changelog:
v2:
- New patch split in v2
---
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
index 812f51f67903..e07d6a6b2049 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
@@ -3247,7 +3247,6 @@ qgroup_rescan_init(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 progress_objectid,
}
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
- spin_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
if (init_flags) {
if (fs_info->qgroup_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN) {
@@ -3262,7 +3261,6 @@ qgroup_rescan_init(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 progress_objectid,
}
if (ret) {
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
return ret;
}
@@ -3273,8 +3271,6 @@ qgroup_rescan_init(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 progress_objectid,
sizeof(fs_info->qgroup_rescan_progress));
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_progress.objectid = progress_objectid;
init_completion(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion);
-
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
btrfs_init_work(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_work,
@@ -3351,9 +3347,7 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
int ret = 0;
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
- spin_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
running = fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running;
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
if (!running)
--
2.25.0
