mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-15 08:14:15 +08:00
btrfs: remove wrong use of volume_mutex from btrfs_dev_replace_start
The volume mutex does not protect against anything in this case, the comment about scrub is right but not related to locking and looks confusing. The comment in btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path is wrong and confusing too. The device_list_mutex is not held here to protect device lookup, but in this case device replace cannot run in parallel with device removal (due to exclusive op protection), so we don't need further locking here. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
149196a2ae
commit
a0fecc2371
@ -414,18 +414,13 @@ int btrfs_dev_replace_start(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
|
||||
struct btrfs_device *tgt_device = NULL;
|
||||
struct btrfs_device *src_device = NULL;
|
||||
|
||||
/* the disk copy procedure reuses the scrub code */
|
||||
mutex_lock(&fs_info->volume_mutex);
|
||||
ret = btrfs_find_device_by_devspec(fs_info, srcdevid,
|
||||
srcdev_name, &src_device);
|
||||
if (ret) {
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->volume_mutex);
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
ret = btrfs_init_dev_replace_tgtdev(fs_info, tgtdev_name,
|
||||
src_device, &tgt_device);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->volume_mutex);
|
||||
if (ret)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -2218,10 +2218,6 @@ int btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
|
||||
struct btrfs_device *tmp;
|
||||
|
||||
devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* It is safe to read the devices since the volume_mutex
|
||||
* is held by the caller.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
list_for_each_entry(tmp, devices, dev_list) {
|
||||
if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_IN_FS_METADATA,
|
||||
&tmp->dev_state) && !tmp->bdev) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user