The volume mutex does not protect against anything in this case, the comment about scrub is right but not related to locking and looks confusing. The comment in btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path is wrong and confusing too.
The device_list_mutex is not held here to protect device lookup, but in this case device replace cannot run in parallel with device removal (due to exclusive op protection), so we don't need further locking here. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com> --- fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 7 +------ fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ---- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c index 346bd460f8e7..ba011af9b0d2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c @@ -426,18 +426,13 @@ int btrfs_dev_replace_start(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct btrfs_device *tgt_device = NULL; struct btrfs_device *src_device = NULL; - /* the disk copy procedure reuses the scrub code */ - mutex_lock(&fs_info->volume_mutex); ret = btrfs_find_device_by_devspec(fs_info, srcdevid, srcdev_name, &src_device); - if (ret) { - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->volume_mutex); + if (ret) return ret; - } ret = btrfs_init_dev_replace_tgtdev(fs_info, tgtdev_name, src_device, &tgt_device); - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->volume_mutex); if (ret) return ret; diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index b073ab4c3c70..0ae29cd69363 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -2198,10 +2198,6 @@ int btrfs_find_device_missing_or_by_path(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct btrfs_device *tmp; devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices; - /* - * It is safe to read the devices since the volume_mutex - * is held by the caller. - */ list_for_each_entry(tmp, devices, dev_list) { if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_IN_FS_METADATA, &tmp->dev_state) && !tmp->bdev) { -- 2.16.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html