On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:56:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > writeback_single_inode() doesn't need wb->list_lock for anything on entry now. > So remove the requirement. This makes locking of writeback_single_inode() > temporarily awkward (entering with i_lock, returning with i_lock and > wb->list_lock) but it will be sanitized in the next patch. > > Also inode_wait_for_writeback() doesn't need wb->list_lock for anything. It was > just taking it to make usage convenient for callers but with > writeback_single_inode() changing it's not very convenient anymore. So remove > the lock from that function. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> In general this should have the sparse lock acquire/release annotations, but if the next patch changes this anyway it might not be as important. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
