On Thu 01-08-19 13:28:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 03:01:32AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > @@ -1931,7 +1932,7 @@ static void __jbd2_journal_temp_unlink_b > > transaction_t *transaction; > > struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh); > > > > - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jbd_is_locked_bh_state(bh)); > > + assert_spin_locked(&jh->state_lock); > > transaction = jh->b_transaction; > > if (transaction) > > assert_spin_locked(&transaction->t_journal->j_list_lock); > > > @@ -2415,7 +2416,7 @@ void __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(struct j > > int was_dirty = 0; > > struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh); > > > > - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jbd_is_locked_bh_state(bh)); > > + assert_spin_locked(&jh->state_lock); > > assert_spin_locked(&transaction->t_journal->j_list_lock); > > > > J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_jlist < BJ_Types); > > > @@ -2500,7 +2501,7 @@ void __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(struct > > int was_dirty, jlist; > > struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh); > > > > - J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jbd_is_locked_bh_state(bh)); > > + assert_spin_locked(&jh->state_lock); > > if (jh->b_transaction) > > assert_spin_locked(&jh->b_transaction->t_journal->j_list_lock); > > > > Do those want to be: > > lockdep_assert_held(&jh->state_lock); > > instead? The difference is of course that lockdep_assert_held() requires > the current context to hold the lock, where assert_*_locked() merely > checks _someone_ holds it. Yeah, jbd2 doesn't play any weird locking tricks so lockdep_assert_held() is fine. I'll replace those when I'm updating the patch. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
