Josef Bacik 0dc3b84a73 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>
2011-12-15 11:04:21 -05:00
..
2011-03-31 11:26:23 -03:00
2011-05-19 16:55:28 +09:30
2011-09-12 11:47:10 -07:00
2011-07-27 22:21:58 -04:00
2011-07-22 19:42:12 -04:00
2011-03-31 11:26:23 -03:00
2011-07-26 16:49:47 -07:00
2011-07-26 16:49:47 -07:00
2011-07-26 13:05:28 -04:00
2011-01-07 17:50:26 +11:00
2011-03-10 08:52:07 +01:00
2011-04-14 16:06:56 -07:00
2011-07-26 16:49:47 -07:00
2011-07-26 16:49:47 -07:00
2011-07-26 16:49:47 -07:00
2011-03-21 00:16:08 -04:00
2011-07-20 20:23:19 -04:00
2011-05-26 10:01:43 -06:00
2011-09-27 08:12:33 -07:00
2011-01-07 17:50:33 +11:00
2011-07-25 20:57:11 -07:00
2011-08-03 14:25:24 -10:00
2011-09-27 08:12:33 -07:00
2011-03-14 09:15:28 -04:00