GitHub-Mirror/Star64_linux
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/Fishwaldo/Star64_linux.git synced 2025-06-28 17:41:50 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Btrfs: fix num_workers_starting bug and other bugs in async thread

Browse source 
Al pointed out we have some random problems with the way we account for
num_workers_starting in the async thread stuff.  First of all we need to make
sure to decrement num_workers_starting if we fail to start the worker, so make
__btrfs_start_workers do this.  Also fix __btrfs_start_workers so that it
doesn't call btrfs_stop_workers(), there is no point in stopping everybody if we
failed to create a worker.  Also check_pending_worker_creates needs to call
__btrfs_start_work in it's work function since it already increments
num_workers_starting.

People only start one worker at a time, so get rid of the num_workers argument
everywhere, and make btrfs_queue_worker a void since it will always succeed.
Thanks,

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Josef Bacik 2011-11-18 14:37:27 -05:00
parent 5dbc8fca8e
commit 0dc3b84a73
4 changed files with 84 additions and 79 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
fs/btrfs/async-thread.h
View file

@ -109,8 +109,8 @@ struct btrfs_workers {
char *name;
};
int btrfs_queue_worker(struct btrfs_workers *workers, struct btrfs_work *work);
int btrfs_start_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers, int num_workers);
void btrfs_queue_worker(struct btrfs_workers *workers, struct btrfs_work *work);
int btrfs_start_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers);
int btrfs_stop_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers);
void btrfs_init_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers, char *name, int max,
struct btrfs_workers *async_starter);