jbd/jbd2: remove obsolete summarise_journal_usage.

From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>

summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
so remove it.

Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
---
 fs/jbd/commit.c  |    6 ------
 fs/jbd2/commit.c |    6 ------
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
> 
> summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> so remove it.
  Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.

								Honza
> 
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
> ---
>  fs/jbd/commit.c  |    6 ------
>  fs/jbd2/commit.c |    6 ------
>  2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> index 69b1804..9cbf9e4 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd/commit.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> @@ -302,12 +302,6 @@ void journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
>  	 * all outstanding updates to complete.
>  	 */
>  
> -#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
> -	spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -	summarise_journal_usage(journal);
> -	spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -#endif
> -
>  	/* Do we need to erase the effects of a prior journal_flush? */
>  	if (journal->j_flags & JFS_FLUSHED) {
>  		jbd_debug(3, "super block updated\n");
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> index 6e28000..29148a8 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> @@ -338,12 +338,6 @@ void jbd2_journal_commit_transaction(journal_t *journal)
>  	 * all outstanding updates to complete.
>  	 */
>  
> -#ifdef COMMIT_STATS
> -	spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -	summarise_journal_usage(journal);
> -	spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> -#endif
> -
>  	/* Do we need to erase the effects of a prior jbd2_journal_flush? */
>  	if (journal->j_flags & JBD2_FLUSHED) {
>  		jbd_debug(3, "super block updated\n");
> -- 
> 1.7.1
>

Hi,
     I have a question, if only one instance of kjournald is active at 
any time, and committing transaction is well separated from others, what 
is need of taking j_list_lock while operating on committing 
transaction's lists?

Niraj
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hello,

On Thu 05-05-11 21:48:34, Niraj Kulkarni wrote:
>     I have a question, if only one instance of kjournald is active
> at any time, and committing transaction is well separated from
> others, what is need of taking j_list_lock while operating on
> committing transaction's lists?
  Other processes (e.g. journal_unmap_buffer()) can occasionally manipulate
with lists of the committing transaction.

								Honza

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> > From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
> > 
> > summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> > so remove it.
>   Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.

Hi Jan,

Did you take the whole patch (removing it for both jbd and jbd2) or
just for jbd?  I'm fine either way, I just want to know if I need to
worry about this patch.

Thanks,

							- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Sun 08-05-11 20:14:41, Ted Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:14:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 05-05-11 23:54:19, Tao Ma wrote:
> > > From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
> > > 
> > > summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
> > > so remove it.
> >   Yes. Added to my tree. Thanks.
> 
> Hi Jan,
> 
> Did you take the whole patch (removing it for both jbd and jbd2) or
> just for jbd?  I'm fine either way, I just want to know if I need to
> worry about this patch.
  I've taken both jbd and jbd2 parts (as I figured it's trivial enough and
won't conflict with anything anyway).

								Honza