Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] btrfs: do not take the uuid_mutex in btrfs_rm_device

[Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>]

On 20/09/2021 17:41, Anand Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/09/2021 16:26, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 03:45:14PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch is causing btrfs/225 to fail [here].
>>>
>>> ------
>>> static void close_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
>>> {
>>>           struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp;
>>>
>>>           lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);  <--- here
>>> -------
>>>
>>> as this patch removed mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex) in btrfs_rm_device().
>>>
>>>
>>> commit 425c6ed6486f (btrfs: do not hold device_list_mutex when closing
>>> devices) added lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex) in close_fs_devices().
>>>
>>>
>>> But mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex) in btrfs_rm_device() is not essential as we
>>> discussed/proved earlier.
>>>
>>> Remove lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex) in close_fs_devices() is a
>>> better choice.
>>
>> This is the other patch that's still not in misc-next. I merged the
>> branch partially and in a different order so that causes the lockdep
>> warning. I can remove the patch "btrfs: do not take the uuid_mutex in
>> btrfs_rm_device" from misc-next for now and merge the whole series in
>> the order as sent but there were comments so I'm waiting for an update.
> 
> Ha ha. I think you are confused, even I was. The problem assert is at 
> close_fs_devices() not clone_fs_devices() (as in 7/7). They are 
> similarly named.
> 
> A variant of 7/7 is already merged.
> c124706900c2 btrfs: fix lockdep warning while mounting sprout fs

  Oops it is patch 1/7 that is not merged. So David meant that.