On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 04:28 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We can just unlock the buffer in the caller, and the decrement of b_hold > would also be needed in the !unlock, we just never hit that case currently > given that the caller handles that case. More specifically, the only way we'd hit that case would involve an unqueued buffer (in xfs_buf_unlock()) getting queued before bt_delwrite_lock could be acquired (in xfs_buf_delwri_queue()). But that can't happen because the buffer is locked the entire time between the check in xfs_buf_unlock() and the one in xfs_buf_delwri_queue(). (Right?) > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
