From: Matthew Wilcox <mawil...@microsoft.com>
The reada_lock in struct btrfs_device was only initialised, and not
actually used. That's good because there's another lock also called
reada_lock in the btrfs_fs_info that was quite heavily used. Remove
this one.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawil...@microsoft.com>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 1 -
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index a25684287501..cba286183ff9 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -244,7 +244,6 @@ static struct btrfs_device *__alloc_device(void)
spin_lock_init(&dev->io_lock);
- spin_lock_init(&dev->reada_lock);
atomic_set(&dev->reada_in_flight, 0);
atomic_set(&dev->dev_stats_ccnt, 0);
btrfs_device_data_ordered_init(dev);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h
index ff15208344a7..335fd1590458 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h
@@ -136,7 +136,6 @@ struct btrfs_device {
struct work_struct rcu_work;
/* readahead state */
- spinlock_t reada_lock;
atomic_t reada_in_flight;
u64 reada_next;
struct reada_zone *reada_curr_zone;
--
2.15.1
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
