[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1410131041-1881-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:03:58 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/6] bdi: remove bdi->wb_lock locking around bdi->dev clearing in bdi_unregister()
The only places where NULL test on bdi->dev is used are
bdi_[un]register(). The functions can't be called in parallel anyway
and there's no point in protecting bdi->dev clearing with a lock.
Remove bdi->wb_lock grabbing around bdi->dev clearing and move it
after device_unregister() call so that bdi->dev doesn't have to be
cached in a local variable.
This patch shouldn't introduce any behavior difference.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
---
mm/backing-dev.c | 10 ++--------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index 1706cbb..4afeefe 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -402,21 +402,15 @@ static void bdi_prune_sb(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
void bdi_unregister(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
{
- struct device *dev = bdi->dev;
-
- if (dev) {
+ if (bdi->dev) {
bdi_set_min_ratio(bdi, 0);
trace_writeback_bdi_unregister(bdi);
bdi_prune_sb(bdi);
bdi_wb_shutdown(bdi);
bdi_debug_unregister(bdi);
-
- spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
+ device_unregister(bdi->dev);
bdi->dev = NULL;
- spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
-
- device_unregister(dev);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdi_unregister);
--
1.9.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists