From 0dc3b84a73267f47a75468f924f5d58a840e3152 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josef Bacik Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:37:27 -0500 Subject: Btrfs: fix num_workers_starting bug and other bugs in async thread Al pointed out we have some random problems with the way we account for num_workers_starting in the async thread stuff. First of all we need to make sure to decrement num_workers_starting if we fail to start the worker, so make __btrfs_start_workers do this. Also fix __btrfs_start_workers so that it doesn't call btrfs_stop_workers(), there is no point in stopping everybody if we failed to create a worker. Also check_pending_worker_creates needs to call __btrfs_start_work in it's work function since it already increments num_workers_starting. People only start one worker at a time, so get rid of the num_workers argument everywhere, and make btrfs_queue_worker a void since it will always succeed. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik --- fs/btrfs/async-thread.h | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/btrfs/async-thread.h') diff --git a/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h b/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h index 5077746cf85e..f34cc31fa3c9 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h @@ -109,8 +109,8 @@ struct btrfs_workers { char *name; }; -int btrfs_queue_worker(struct btrfs_workers *workers, struct btrfs_work *work); -int btrfs_start_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers, int num_workers); +void btrfs_queue_worker(struct btrfs_workers *workers, struct btrfs_work *work); +int btrfs_start_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers); int btrfs_stop_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers); void btrfs_init_workers(struct btrfs_workers *workers, char *name, int max, struct btrfs_workers *async_starter); -- cgit v1.2.3