We were grabbing the sequence number before unlock incremented it - fix
this by moving the increment to seqmutex_lock() (so the seqmutex_relock()
failure path skips the mutex_trylock()), and returning the sequence
number from unlock(), to make the API simpler and safer.
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
struct bch_fs *c = i->c;
struct btree_trans *trans;
ssize_t ret = 0;
- u32 seq;
i->ubuf = buf;
i->size = size;
continue;
closure_get(&trans->ref);
- seq = seqmutex_seq(&c->btree_trans_lock);
- seqmutex_unlock(&c->btree_trans_lock);
+ u32 seq = seqmutex_unlock(&c->btree_trans_lock);
ret = flush_buf(i);
if (ret) {
struct bch_fs *c = i->c;
struct btree_trans *trans;
ssize_t ret = 0;
- u32 seq;
i->ubuf = buf;
i->size = size;
continue;
closure_get(&trans->ref);
- seq = seqmutex_seq(&c->btree_trans_lock);
- seqmutex_unlock(&c->btree_trans_lock);
+ u32 seq = seqmutex_unlock(&c->btree_trans_lock);
ret = flush_buf(i);
if (ret) {
static inline void seqmutex_lock(struct seqmutex *lock)
{
mutex_lock(&lock->lock);
-}
-
-static inline void seqmutex_unlock(struct seqmutex *lock)
-{
lock->seq++;
- mutex_unlock(&lock->lock);
}
-static inline u32 seqmutex_seq(struct seqmutex *lock)
+static inline u32 seqmutex_unlock(struct seqmutex *lock)
{
- return lock->seq;
+ u32 seq = lock->seq;
+ mutex_unlock(&lock->lock);
+ return seq;
}
static inline bool seqmutex_relock(struct seqmutex *lock, u32 seq)