[PATCH] fs: btrfs: remove the usage of undeclared fs_mutex variable
This line probably got in by mistake as there is no fs_mutex member in the btrfs_fs_info struct.
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 8043abc1bd..c80f8e8028 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -782,8 +782,6 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info *btrfs_new_fs_info(void) fs_info->fs_root_tree = RB_ROOT; cache_tree_init(&fs_info->mapping_tree.cache_tree);
- mutex_init(&fs_info->fs_mutex); - return fs_info; free_all: btrfs_free_fs_info(fs_info);
On 2022/9/27 17:55, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
This line probably got in by mistake as there is no fs_mutex member in the btrfs_fs_info struct.
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com
Which branch is the code based on?
I don't believe it's upstream, as such compiling error should be exposed very easily.
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
Furthermore at current upstream HEAD a1375562c0a8 ("Merge tag 'x86_urgent_for_v6.0-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip"), there is no btrfs_new_fs_info() function defined anyway.
THanks, Qu
index 8043abc1bd..c80f8e8028 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -782,8 +782,6 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info *btrfs_new_fs_info(void) fs_info->fs_root_tree = RB_ROOT; cache_tree_init(&fs_info->mapping_tree.cache_tree);
- mutex_init(&fs_info->fs_mutex);
- return fs_info; free_all: btrfs_free_fs_info(fs_info);
On 2022/9/27 18:39, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2022/9/27 17:55, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
This line probably got in by mistake as there is no fs_mutex member in the btrfs_fs_info struct.
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com
Which branch is the code based on?
I don't believe it's upstream, as such compiling error should be exposed very easily.
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
Furthermore at current upstream HEAD a1375562c0a8 ("Merge tag 'x86_urgent_for_v6.0-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip"), there is no btrfs_new_fs_info() function defined anyway.
My bad, I didn't notice it's for Uboot, not kernel.
In that case, you can safely remove it, but it won't cause compile error since in <linux/compat.h>, we define mutex_init() as noop, thus it doesn't cause any compile error.
Anyway the patch itself looks good, I also checked if there is other mutex related usage, and this is the only one.
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com
Thanks, Qu
THanks, Qu
index 8043abc1bd..c80f8e8028 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -782,8 +782,6 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info *btrfs_new_fs_info(void) fs_info->fs_root_tree = RB_ROOT; cache_tree_init(&fs_info->mapping_tree.cache_tree); - mutex_init(&fs_info->fs_mutex);
return fs_info; free_all: btrfs_free_fs_info(fs_info);
Which branch is the code based on?
I actually cloned it from u-boot github master. https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/f117c54cc83e3c519883edb5a48062644d38c4...
I don't believe it's upstream, as such compiling error should be exposed very easily.
Actually, I was also surprised but the compiler did not give me any error because the mutex definition was as follows: #define mutex_init(...)
and the compiler did not generate any error because we don't do anything the parameter.
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
Furthermore at current upstream HEAD a1375562c0a8 ("Merge tag 'x86_urgent_for_v6.0-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip"), there is no btrfs_new_fs_info() function defined anyway.
Hmm, I sent these patches for u-boot. Maybe there is a misunderstanding here? :)
THanks, Qu
index 8043abc1bd..c80f8e8028 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -782,8 +782,6 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info *btrfs_new_fs_info(void) fs_info->fs_root_tree = RB_ROOT; cache_tree_init(&fs_info->mapping_tree.cache_tree); - mutex_init(&fs_info->fs_mutex);
return fs_info; free_all: btrfs_free_fs_info(fs_info);
On 2022/9/27 18:49, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
Which branch is the code based on?
I actually cloned it from u-boot github master. https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/f117c54cc83e3c519883edb5a48062644d38c4...
I don't believe it's upstream, as such compiling error should be exposed very easily.
Actually, I was also surprised but the compiler did not give me any error because the mutex definition was as follows: #define mutex_init(...)
and the compiler did not generate any error because we don't do anything the parameter.
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
Furthermore at current upstream HEAD a1375562c0a8 ("Merge tag 'x86_urgent_for_v6.0-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip"), there is no btrfs_new_fs_info() function defined anyway.
Hmm, I sent these patches for u-boot. Maybe there is a misunderstanding here? :)
Yeah, you're completely right, I thought it's for kernel by default...
Sorry for the confusion. Qu
THanks, Qu
index 8043abc1bd..c80f8e8028 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -782,8 +782,6 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info *btrfs_new_fs_info(void) fs_info->fs_root_tree = RB_ROOT; cache_tree_init(&fs_info->mapping_tree.cache_tree); - mutex_init(&fs_info->fs_mutex);
return fs_info; free_all: btrfs_free_fs_info(fs_info);
participants (2)
-
Pankaj Raghav -
Qu Wenruo