On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 10:14:16PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.
Oops, missed that. Will fix.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
