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 <josef@redhat.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h b/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h
index 5077746..f34cc31 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/async-thread.h
@@ -109,8 +109,8 @@
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);