2022-03-25 20:22:58

by Jaegeuk Kim

Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: remove unnecessary f2fs_lock_op in f2fs_new_inode

This can be removed, since f2fs_alloc_nid() actually doesn't require to block
checkpoint and __f2fs_build_free_nids() is covered by nm_i->nat_tree_lock.

Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/namei.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
index 5ed79b29999f..816285414564 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
@@ -37,13 +37,10 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_new_inode(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns,
if (!inode)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);

- f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
if (!f2fs_alloc_nid(sbi, &ino)) {
- f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
err = -ENOSPC;
goto fail;
}
- f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);

nid_free = true;

--
2.35.1.1021.g381101b075-goog

2022-03-27 00:47:21

by Chao Yu

Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: remove unnecessary f2fs_lock_op in f2fs_new_inode

On 2022/3/26 2:18, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> This can be removed, since f2fs_alloc_nid() actually doesn't require to block
> checkpoint and __f2fs_build_free_nids() is covered by nm_i->nat_tree_lock.
>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>

Looks fine, but still it needs more test to check stability w/ the patch. ;)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>

Thanks,