On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 09:54:30AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The only non-constant value read under m_sb_lock in xfs_fs_statfs is > sb_dblocks, and it could become stale right after dropping the lock > anyway. Remove the thus pointless lock section. Is there a stronger reason later for removing the critical section? Do we lose much by leaving the protection in place? --D > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > index 0fa7b7cc75c1..bfa8cc927009 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > @@ -850,11 +850,9 @@ xfs_fs_statfs( > ifree = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_ifree); > fdblocks = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_fdblocks); > > - spin_lock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > statp->f_bsize = sbp->sb_blocksize; > lsize = sbp->sb_logstart ? sbp->sb_logblocks : 0; > statp->f_blocks = sbp->sb_dblocks - lsize; > - spin_unlock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > > /* make sure statp->f_bfree does not underflow */ > statp->f_bfree = max_t(int64_t, 0, > -- > 2.45.2 > >
