btrfs: btrfs_wait_tree_block_writeback can be void return
Nothing checks its return value.
Is it safe to skip checking return value of btrfs_wait_tree_block_writeback?
Liu Bo: I think yes, it's used in walk_log_tree which is called in two
places, free_log_tree and log replay. For free_log_tree, it waits for
any running writeback of the extent buffer under freeing to finish in
case we need to access the eb pointer from page->private, and it's OK to
not check the return value, while for log replay, it's doesn't wait
because wc->wait is not set. So neither cares about the writeback error.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
[ added more explanation to changelog, from Liu Bo ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.h b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.h
index 35ddfcf..4654d12 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.h
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ int btrfs_wq_submit_bio(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct bio *bio,
extent_submit_bio_hook_t *submit_bio_done);
unsigned long btrfs_async_submit_limit(struct btrfs_fs_info *info);
int btrfs_write_tree_block(struct extent_buffer *buf);
-int btrfs_wait_tree_block_writeback(struct extent_buffer *buf);
+void btrfs_wait_tree_block_writeback(struct extent_buffer *buf);
int btrfs_init_log_root_tree(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info);
int btrfs_add_log_tree(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,