From 33a9eca7e4a4c2c17aebbb11f0e506a48ebc30c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Sterba Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:35:10 +0200 Subject: btrfs: comment waitqueue_active implied by locks Suggested-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'fs/btrfs/raid56.c') diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c index fcf7265ca46f..1a33d3eb36de 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c @@ -810,7 +810,11 @@ static noinline void unlock_stripe(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio) } goto done_nolock; - } else if (waitqueue_active(&h->wait)) { + /* + * The barrier for this waitqueue_active is not needed, + * we're protected by h->lock and can't miss a wakeup. + */ + } else if (waitqueue_active(&h->wait)) { spin_unlock(&rbio->bio_list_lock); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags); wake_up(&h->wait); -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151