On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:09:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:28:24PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Fix up all the compiler warnings about unused variables that have crept in.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c | 9 +++------
> > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c | 4 ++++
> > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 4 ++++
> > 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > index fb310d0..31840ca 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > @@ -1499,14 +1499,11 @@ xfs_iext_realloc_indirect(
> > xfs_ifork_t *ifp, /* inode fork pointer */
> > int new_size) /* new indirection array size */
> > {
> > - int nlists; /* number of irec's (ex lists) */
> > - int size; /* current indirection array size */
> > -
> > ASSERT(ifp->if_flags & XFS_IFEXTIREC);
> > - nlists = ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ;
> > - size = nlists * sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t);
> > ASSERT(ifp->if_real_bytes);
> > - ASSERT((new_size >= 0) && (new_size != size));
> > + ASSERT((new_size >= 0) &&
> > + (new_size != ((ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ) *
> > + sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t))));
> > if (new_size == 0) {
> > xfs_iext_destroy(ifp);
> > } else {
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > index f5d25f5..806b17e 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> > @@ -570,12 +570,16 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
> > bool aborted;
> > bool hold;
> > bool dirty;
> > +#ifdef DEBUG
> > bool ordered;
> > +#endif
> >
> > aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
> > hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
> > dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
> > +#ifdef DEBUG
> > ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> > +#endif
>
> I'd revert the last patch that changed this code (because it's
> busted!) and just do this here:
>
> +#ifdef DEBUG
> bool ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
> +#endif
>
> Also, feel free to rebase for-next to get rid of that last patch -
> just like linux-next, for-next isn't meant to be 100% stable. IMO
> it's better at this point to rebase for-next to remove/correct
> mistakes than to have commits in the tree that don't work....
Ok. Sorry about the noise, everyone.
--D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
