We need not add anything to protect fs_info->max_inline, but we need a
comment to
explain why we don''t add a lock to protect it.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index 745e7ad..3e672916 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -1288,6 +1288,12 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
atomic64_t last_trans_log_full_commit;
unsigned long mount_opt;
unsigned long compress_type:4;
+ /*
+ * It is a suggestive number, the read side is safe even it gets a
+ * wrong number because we will write out the data into a regular
+ * extent. The write side(mount/remount) is under ->s_umount lock,
+ * so it is also safe.
+ */
u64 max_inline;
u64 alloc_start;
struct btrfs_transaction *running_transaction;
--
1.7.11.7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html