@@ -367,7 +367,6 @@ struct btrfs_dev_replace {
struct mutex lock_finishing_cancel_unmount;
rwlock_t lock;
- atomic_t read_locks;
atomic_t blocking_readers;
wait_queue_head_t read_lock_wq;
@@ -961,13 +961,10 @@ int btrfs_dev_replace_is_ongoing(struct btrfs_dev_replace *dev_replace)
void btrfs_dev_replace_read_lock(struct btrfs_dev_replace *dev_replace)
{
read_lock(&dev_replace->lock);
- atomic_inc(&dev_replace->read_locks);
}
void btrfs_dev_replace_read_unlock(struct btrfs_dev_replace *dev_replace)
{
- ASSERT(atomic_read(&dev_replace->read_locks) > 0);
- atomic_dec(&dev_replace->read_locks);
read_unlock(&dev_replace->lock);
}
@@ -994,7 +991,6 @@ void btrfs_dev_replace_set_lock_blocking(
struct btrfs_dev_replace *dev_replace)
{
/* only set blocking for read lock */
- ASSERT(atomic_read(&dev_replace->read_locks) > 0);
atomic_inc(&dev_replace->blocking_readers);
read_unlock(&dev_replace->lock);
}
@@ -1004,7 +1000,6 @@ void btrfs_dev_replace_clear_lock_blocking(
struct btrfs_dev_replace *dev_replace)
{
/* only set blocking for read lock */
- ASSERT(atomic_read(&dev_replace->read_locks) > 0);
ASSERT(atomic_read(&dev_replace->blocking_readers) > 0);
read_lock(&dev_replace->lock);
/* Barrier implied by atomic_dec_and_test */
@@ -2155,7 +2155,6 @@ static void btrfs_init_dev_replace_locks(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
{
mutex_init(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock_finishing_cancel_unmount);
rwlock_init(&fs_info->dev_replace.lock);
- atomic_set(&fs_info->dev_replace.read_locks, 0);
atomic_set(&fs_info->dev_replace.blocking_readers, 0);
init_waitqueue_head(&fs_info->replace_wait);
init_waitqueue_head(&fs_info->dev_replace.read_lock_wq);
This member seems to be copied from the extent_buffer locking scheme and is at least used to assert that the read lock/unlock is properly nested. In some way. While the _inc/_dec are called inside the read lock section, the asserts are both inside and outside, so the ordering is not guaranteed and we can see read/inc/dec ordered in any way (theoretically). A missing call of btrfs_dev_replace_clear_lock_blocking could cause unexpected read_locks count, so this at least looks like a valid assertion, but this will become unnecessary with later updates. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 1 - fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 5 ----- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 1 - 3 files changed, 7 deletions(-)