On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 09:52:56AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> index 91dc691f40a8..81ca951b451a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -531,18 +531,16 @@ xfs_buf_map_verify(
>
> static int
> xfs_buf_find_lock(
> - struct xfs_buftarg *btp,
> struct xfs_buf *bp,
> xfs_buf_flags_t flags)
> {
> if (!xfs_buf_trylock(bp)) {
> if (flags & XBF_TRYLOCK) {
> - xfs_buf_rele(bp);
> - XFS_STATS_INC(btp->bt_mount, xb_busy_locked);
> + XFS_STATS_INC(bp->b_mount, xb_busy_locked);
> return -EAGAIN;
> }
> xfs_buf_lock(bp);
> - XFS_STATS_INC(btp->bt_mount, xb_get_locked_waited);
> + XFS_STATS_INC(bp->b_mount, xb_get_locked_waited);
> }
>
> /*
Not doing this to start with in the previous patch still feels
rather odd.
