On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 12:56 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2014-11-02 08:31:18 [+0100]:
>
> >--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> >+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
> >@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ noinline void btrfs_clear_path_blocking(
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> >-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >+#if (defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE))
> > /* lockdep really cares that we take all of these spinlocks
> > * in the right order. If any of the locks in the path are not
> > * currently blocking, it is going to complain. So, make really
>
> This is gone since commit f82c458 ("btrfs: fix lockups from
> btrfs_clear_path_blocking")
Goody, BTRFS took a modest workout without a whimper. When that patch
was born, you didn't have to try, deadlock was immediate gratification.
> >@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ noinline void btrfs_clear_path_blocking(
> > }
> > }
> >
> >-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >+#if (defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC) || defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE))
> > if (held)
> > btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw(held, held_rw);
> > #endif
> >--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> >+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> >@@ -6938,14 +6938,6 @@ use_block_rsv(struct btrfs_trans_handle
> > goto again;
> > }
> >
> >- if (btrfs_test_opt(root, ENOSPC_DEBUG)) {
> >- static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(_rs,
> >- DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL * 10,
> >- /*DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST*/ 1);
> >- if (__ratelimit(&_rs))
> >- WARN(1, KERN_DEBUG
> >- "BTRFS: block rsv returned %d\n", ret);
> >- }
> > try_reserve:
> > ret = reserve_metadata_bytes(root, block_rsv, blocksize,
> > BTRFS_RESERVE_NO_FLUSH);
> >
> and this look like just a warning with enabled debug that is supressed.
> May I drop this patch?
Yup, that was a cosmetic thing, also suggested by Chris Mason. BTRFS
seems to now just work. Hopefully it'll keep on just working, I don't
want to ever go back there :)
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
