On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:37:21PM -0700, Allison Collins wrote: > New delayed allocation routines cannot be handling > transactions so factor them up into the calling functions > > Signed-off-by: Allison Collins <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c | 5 +---- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > index 7648ceb..ca57202 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > @@ -823,6 +823,12 @@ xfs_attr_leaf_addname(struct xfs_da_args *args) > * Added a "remote" value, just clear the incomplete flag. > */ > error = xfs_attr3_leaf_clearflag(args); > + > + /* > + * Commit the flag value change and start the next trans in > + * series. > + */ > + error = xfs_trans_roll_inode(&args->trans, args->dp); > } > return error; > } > @@ -1180,6 +1186,12 @@ xfs_attr_node_addname( > error = xfs_attr3_leaf_clearflag(args); > if (error) > goto out; > + > + /* > + * Commit the flag value change and start the next trans in > + * series. > + */ > + error = xfs_trans_roll_inode(&args->trans, args->dp); > } > retval = error = 0; Doesn't this cause us to lose the error code from the roll_inode above? --D > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c > index b2d5f62..e3604b9 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c > @@ -2722,10 +2722,7 @@ xfs_attr3_leaf_clearflag( > XFS_DA_LOGRANGE(leaf, name_rmt, sizeof(*name_rmt))); > } > > - /* > - * Commit the flag value change and start the next trans in series. > - */ > - return xfs_trans_roll_inode(&args->trans, args->dp); > + return error; > } > > /* > -- > 2.7.4 >
