On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:08:48PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > +int xfs_iunlink_init(struct xfs_perag *pag); > > +void xfs_iunlink_destroy(struct xfs_perag *pag); > > +xfs_agino_t xfs_iunlink_lookup_backref(struct xfs_perag *pag, > > + xfs_agino_t agino); > > +int xfs_iunlink_add_backref(struct xfs_perag *pag, xfs_agino_t prev_agino, > > + xfs_agino_t this_agino); > > +int xfs_iunlink_change_backref(struct xfs_perag *pag, xfs_agino_t prev_agino, > > + xfs_agino_t this_agino); > > xfs_iunlink_lookup_backref and xfs_iunlink_change_backref aren't > used outside of xfs_inode.c and should be marked static. Fixed. > > + /* > > + * Make sure the in-core data knows about this unlinked inode. Since > > + * our iunlinks recovery basically just deletes the head of a bucket > > + * list until the bucket is empty, we need only to add the backref from > > + * the current list item to the next one, if this isn't the list tail. > > + */ > > pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, agno); > > pag->pagi_unlinked_count++; > > + if (agino != NULLAGINO) > > + error = xfs_iunlink_add_backref(pag, XFS_INO_TO_AGINO(mp, ino), > > + agino); > > xfs_perag_put(pag); > > + if (error) > > + goto fail_iput; > > Note that the previos agino that we recaculate above is actually passed > to the function as an argument. I think we should just add a new > next_agino variable for the one we read from the dinode and return and > reuse the argument here instead of recaculating it. Ok, I'll change the variable names. > Question: what lock now protects the rhastable modifications? Maybe > we need to add some lockdep asserts to document that. Callers are expected to hold the AGI buffer lock to serialize accesses to the incore unlinked data. That includes pagi_unlinked_count and the new rhashtable. --D
