On Thu, Sep 12 2024, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 12-09-24 09:19:18, Luis Henriques wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12 2024, kernel test robot wrote: >> >> > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >> > head: 32ffa5373540a8d1c06619f52d019c6cdc948bb4 >> > commit: ebc4b2c1ac92fc0f8bf3f5a9c285a871d5084a6b [5690/11210] ext4: fix incorrect tid assumption in ext4_fc_mark_ineligible() >> > config: loongarch-randconfig-r063-20240911 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240912/202409120149.GdjqoVYQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) >> > compiler: loongarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.1.0 >> > >> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of >> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags >> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202409120149.GdjqoVYQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >> > >> > cocci warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) >> >>> fs/ext4/fast_commit.c:362:21-23: WARNING !A || A && B is equivalent to !A || B >> > >> > vim +362 fs/ext4/fast_commit.c >> > >> > 332 >> > 333 /* >> > 334 * Mark file system as fast commit ineligible, and record latest >> > 335 * ineligible transaction tid. This means until the recorded >> > 336 * transaction, commit operation would result in a full jbd2 commit. >> > 337 */ >> > 338 void ext4_fc_mark_ineligible(struct super_block *sb, int reason, handle_t *handle) >> > 339 { >> > 340 struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); >> > 341 tid_t tid; >> > 342 bool has_transaction = true; >> > 343 bool is_ineligible; >> > 344 >> > 345 if (ext4_fc_disabled(sb)) >> > 346 return; >> > 347 >> > 348 if (handle && !IS_ERR(handle)) >> > 349 tid = handle->h_transaction->t_tid; >> > 350 else { >> > 351 read_lock(&sbi->s_journal->j_state_lock); >> > 352 if (sbi->s_journal->j_running_transaction) >> > 353 tid = sbi->s_journal->j_running_transaction->t_tid; >> > 354 else >> > 355 has_transaction = false; >> > 356 read_unlock(&sbi->s_journal->j_state_lock); >> > 357 } >> > 358 spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock); >> > 359 is_ineligible = ext4_test_mount_flag(sb, EXT4_MF_FC_INELIGIBLE); >> > 360 if (has_transaction && >> > 361 (!is_ineligible || >> > > 362 (is_ineligible && tid_gt(tid, sbi->s_fc_ineligible_tid)))) >> > 363 sbi->s_fc_ineligible_tid = tid; >> >> This suggestion is obviously correct. However, my brain found it much >> easier to write (and understand) this logic if written this way. >> >> Ted, want me to re-send this patch (or a fix for it), or are you happy >> leaving it as is? > > I think I've already seen a patch for this. Yes [1]. Frankly I don't care > much but I slightly prefer the shorter variant. Oh! I totally missed that patch on the mailing-list. OK, so no action for me then. Thanks! > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240912090722.4e7o4l462y6hccau@quack3 (Minor nit: looks like this patch has a 'Closes:' tag pointing to a bugzilla link which isn't accessible at the moment. But maybe it's just a temporary '502'.) Cheers, -- Luís
