btrfs: simplify error handling of clean_pinned_extents()

At clean_pinned_extents(), whether we end up returning success or failure,
we pretty much have to do the same things:

1) unlock unused_bg_unpin_mutex
2) decrement reference count on the previous transaction

We also call btrfs_dec_block_group_ro() in case of failure, but that is
better done in its caller, btrfs_delete_unused_bgs(), since its the
caller that calls inc_block_group_ro(), so it should be responsible for
the decrement operation, as it is in case any of the other functions it
calls fail.

So move the call to btrfs_dec_block_group_ro() from clean_pinned_extents()
into  btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() and unify the error and success return
paths for clean_pinned_extents(), reducing duplicated code and making it
simpler.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
This commit is contained in:
Filipe Manana 2020-04-17 16:36:50 +01:00 коммит произвёл David Sterba
Родитель e3b8336117
Коммит 534cf531cc
1 изменённых файлов: 6 добавлений и 12 удалений

Просмотреть файл

@ -1284,25 +1284,17 @@ static bool clean_pinned_extents(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
ret = clear_extent_bits(&prev_trans->pinned_extents, start, end,
EXTENT_DIRTY);
if (ret)
goto err;
goto out;
}
ret = clear_extent_bits(&trans->transaction->pinned_extents, start, end,
EXTENT_DIRTY);
if (ret)
goto err;
out:
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->unused_bg_unpin_mutex);
if (prev_trans)
btrfs_put_transaction(prev_trans);
return true;
err:
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->unused_bg_unpin_mutex);
if (prev_trans)
btrfs_put_transaction(prev_trans);
btrfs_dec_block_group_ro(bg);
return false;
return ret == 0;
}
/*
@ -1400,8 +1392,10 @@ void btrfs_delete_unused_bgs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
* We could have pending pinned extents for this block group,
* just delete them, we don't care about them anymore.
*/
if (!clean_pinned_extents(trans, block_group))
if (!clean_pinned_extents(trans, block_group)) {
btrfs_dec_block_group_ro(block_group);
goto end_trans;
}
/*
* At this point, the block_group is read only and should fail