On 9/24/18 12:04 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:22:08PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Verify the inode di_forkoff, lifted from xfs_repair's
>> process_check_inode_forkoff().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> index 30d1d60f1d46..8d76637a49a7 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_buf.c
>> @@ -415,6 +415,31 @@ xfs_dinode_verify_fork(
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +static xfs_failaddr_t
>> +xfs_dinode_verify_forkoff(
>> + struct xfs_dinode *dip,
>> + struct xfs_mount *mp)
>> +{
>> + if (dip->di_forkoff == 0)
>> + return NULL;
>
> I think it would be good to use XFS_DFORK_Q() here, just to be
> consistent with the other, similar checks. Otherwise looks good:
Ok; personally I hate that macro ;) but you're right, consistency
first.
-Eric
