On 01/15/2018 05:31 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> delayed_iput_count wa supposed to be used to implement, well, delayed
> iput. The idea is that we keep accumulating the number of iputs we do
> until eventually the inode is deleted. Turns out we never really
> switched the delayed_iput_count from 0 to 1, hence all conditional
> code relying on the value of that member being different than 0 was
> never executed. This, as it turns out, didn't cause any problem due
> to the simple fact that the generic inode's i_count member was always
> used to count the number of iputs. So let's just remove the unused
> member and all unused code. This patch essentially provides no
> functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <[email protected]>

Since the 8089fe62c6 changelog mentions the need for a count, it might
be nice to include a brief code comment about the i_count effect.

Reviewed-by: Edmund Nadolski <[email protected]>


> ---
>  fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h |  1 -
>  fs/btrfs/inode.c       | 17 +++--------------
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> index 63f0ccc92a71..f527e99c9f8d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
> @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
>  
>       /* Hook into fs_info->delayed_iputs */
>       struct list_head delayed_iput;
> -     long delayed_iput_count;
>  
>       /*
>        * To avoid races between lockless (i_mutex not held) direct IO writes
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 029399593049..2225f613516c 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -3252,12 +3252,8 @@ void btrfs_add_delayed_iput(struct inode *inode)
>               return;
>  
>       spin_lock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
> -     if (binode->delayed_iput_count == 0) {
> -             ASSERT(list_empty(&binode->delayed_iput));
> -             list_add_tail(&binode->delayed_iput, &fs_info->delayed_iputs);
> -     } else {
> -             binode->delayed_iput_count++;
> -     }
> +     ASSERT(list_empty(&binode->delayed_iput));
> +     list_add_tail(&binode->delayed_iput, &fs_info->delayed_iputs);
>       spin_unlock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
>  }
>  
> @@ -3270,13 +3266,7 @@ void btrfs_run_delayed_iputs(struct btrfs_fs_info 
> *fs_info)
>  
>               inode = list_first_entry(&fs_info->delayed_iputs,
>                               struct btrfs_inode, delayed_iput);
> -             if (inode->delayed_iput_count) {
> -                     inode->delayed_iput_count--;
> -                     list_move_tail(&inode->delayed_iput,
> -                                     &fs_info->delayed_iputs);
> -             } else {
> -                     list_del_init(&inode->delayed_iput);
> -             }
> +             list_del_init(&inode->delayed_iput);
>               spin_unlock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
>               iput(&inode->vfs_inode);
>               spin_lock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
> @@ -9424,7 +9414,6 @@ struct inode *btrfs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>       ei->dir_index = 0;
>       ei->last_unlink_trans = 0;
>       ei->last_log_commit = 0;
> -     ei->delayed_iput_count = 0;
>  
>       spin_lock_init(&ei->lock);
>       ei->outstanding_extents = 0;
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to