On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:27:53PM -0700, Allison Collins wrote:
> New delayed attribute routines cannot handle transactions,
> so factor this up to the calling function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Allison Collins <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
> index dda2eba..e0a38a2 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c
> @@ -227,8 +227,7 @@ xfs_attr_try_sf_addname(
> struct xfs_da_args *args)
> {
>
> - struct xfs_mount *mp = dp->i_mount;
> - int error, error2;
> + int error;
>
> error = xfs_attr_shortform_addname(args);
> if (error == -ENOSPC)
> @@ -241,12 +240,7 @@ xfs_attr_try_sf_addname(
> if (!error && (args->name.type & ATTR_KERNOTIME) == 0)
> xfs_trans_ichgtime(args->trans, dp, XFS_ICHGTIME_CHG);
What if you moved this part (the conditional ichgtime) into
xfs_attr_shortform_addname? Then this function can just go away.
>
> - if (mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_WSYNC)
> - xfs_trans_set_sync(args->trans);
> -
> - error2 = xfs_trans_commit(args->trans);
> - args->trans = NULL;
> - return error ? error : error2;
> + return error;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -258,7 +252,7 @@ xfs_attr_set_args(
> {
> struct xfs_inode *dp = args->dp;
> struct xfs_buf *leaf_bp = NULL;
> - int error;
> + int error, error2 = 0;;
>
> /*
> * If the attribute list is non-existent or a shortform list,
> @@ -278,8 +272,15 @@ xfs_attr_set_args(
> * Try to add the attr to the attribute list in the inode.
> */
> error = xfs_attr_try_sf_addname(dp, args);
> - if (error != -ENOSPC)
> - return error;
> + if (error != -ENOSPC) {
> + if (dp->i_mount->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_WSYNC)
> + xfs_trans_set_sync(args->trans);
> +
> + error2 = xfs_trans_commit(args->trans);
> + args->trans = NULL;
> + return error ? error : error2;
Can error be something other than 0 or EEXIST? If so, does it make
sense to commit even in those cases? (Have I asked this before...?) It
looks odd to me that we'd commit the transaction even if something
handed back EFSCORRUPTED.
Hm, it's a local attr fork so I guess the only possible error is ENOSPC?
If that's true then please add a comment/ASSERT to that effect.
--D
> + }
> +
>
> /*
> * It won't fit in the shortform, transform to a leaf block.
> --
> 2.7.4
>
