On 11/8/19 2:04 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
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.
Sure, I may do that in a separate patch though just to make it easier to
review.
- 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...?)
Yeah, this came up once before:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11087647/
So I simplified it, but then I think people were more comfortable with a
straight refactor with no function change:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11134023/
So I put it back. :-)
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.
Ok, how about a comment. Something like
/* Should only be 0, EEXIST or ENOSPC */
Sound good?
Allison
--D
+ }
+
/*
* It won't fit in the shortform, transform to a leaf block.
--
2.7.4
