On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 02:24:12PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 04-01-21 16:54:47, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Since I_DIRTY_TIME and I_DIRTY_INODE are mutually exclusive in i_state,
> > there's no need to check for I_DIRTY_TIME && !I_DIRTY_INODE. Just check
> > for I_DIRTY_TIME.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/inode.c | 8 +++-----
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index 4cc6c7834312f..9e34541715968 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@ -4962,14 +4962,12 @@ static void __ext4_update_other_inode_time(struct super_block *sb,
> > return;
> >
> > if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> > - I_DIRTY_INODE)) ||
> > - ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) == 0))
> > + I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME)
> > return;
>
> This is OK.
>
> > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > - if (((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> > - I_DIRTY_INODE)) == 0) &&
> > - (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)) {
> > + if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
> > + I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME) {
>
> But this condition is negated AFAICT. We should have == I_DIRTY_TIME here
> AFAICT.
Indeed, I'll fix that. Thanks for catching this!
- Eric
