Commit 289dec5b authored by Al Viro's avatar Al Viro

ufs: more deadlock prevention on tail unpacking

->s_lock is not needed for ufs_change_blocknr()
Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
parent 09bf4f5b
......@@ -478,6 +478,7 @@ u64 ufs_new_fragments(struct inode *inode, void *p, u64 fragment,
if (result) {
ufs_clear_frags(inode, result + oldcount, newcount - oldcount,
locked_page != NULL);
mutex_unlock(&UFS_SB(sb)->s_lock);
ufs_change_blocknr(inode, fragment - oldcount, oldcount,
uspi->s_sbbase + tmp,
uspi->s_sbbase + result, locked_page);
......@@ -487,7 +488,6 @@ u64 ufs_new_fragments(struct inode *inode, void *p, u64 fragment,
UFS_I(inode)->i_lastfrag = max(UFS_I(inode)->i_lastfrag,
fragment + count);
write_sequnlock(&UFS_I(inode)->meta_lock);
mutex_unlock(&UFS_SB(sb)->s_lock);
if (newcount < request)
ufs_free_fragments (inode, result + newcount, request - newcount);
ufs_free_fragments (inode, tmp, oldcount);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment