On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 03:23:49PM -0400, je...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
> +static void queue_rescan_worker(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> + if (btrfs_fs_closing(fs_info)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> + return;
> + }
> + if (WARN_ON(fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running)) {
The warning is quite noisy, I see it after tests btrfs/ 017, 022, 124,
139, 153. Is it necessary for non-debugging builds?
The tested branch was full for-next so it could be your patchset
interacting with other fixes, but the warning noise level question still
stands.
> + btrfs_warn(fs_info, "rescan worker already queued");
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Being queued is enough for btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion
> + * to need to wait.
> + */
> + fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = true;
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
> +
> + btrfs_queue_work(fs_info->qgroup_rescan_workers,
> + &fs_info->qgroup_rescan_work);
> +}
--
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
