On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:55:40AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> > + struct xfs_buf *bp;
> > + xfs_daddr_t dblkno;
> > + int dblkcnt;
> > +
> > + ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL));
> > +
> > + dblkno = XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(mp, map->br_startblock),
> > + dblkcnt = XFS_FSB_TO_BB(mp, map->br_blockcount);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the "remote" value is in the cache, remove it.
> > + */
> > + bp = xfs_buf_incore(mp->m_ddev_targp, dblkno, dblkcnt, XBF_TRYLOCK);
>
> Do we really need the dblkno and dblkcnt local variables here?
Eh, not really.
> > @@ -592,18 +614,8 @@ xfs_attr_rmtval_remove(
> > ASSERT((map.br_startblock != DELAYSTARTBLOCK) &&
> > (map.br_startblock != HOLESTARTBLOCK));
> >
> > - dblkno = XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(mp, map.br_startblock),
> > - dblkcnt = XFS_FSB_TO_BB(mp, map.br_blockcount);
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * If the "remote" value is in the cache, remove it.
> > - */
> > - bp = xfs_buf_incore(mp->m_ddev_targp, dblkno, dblkcnt, XBF_TRYLOCK);
> > - if (bp) {
> > - xfs_buf_stale(bp);
> > - xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> > - bp = NULL;
> > - }
> > + if (map.br_startblock != HOLESTARTBLOCK)
> > + xfs_attr_rmtval_stale(args->dp, &map);
>
> I don't think we need the HOLESTARTBLOCK check here, given that we have
> the asserts above. I also think the assert should move into
> xfs_attr_rmtval_stale and be split into two asserts, one each for the
> invalid values.
<nod> I'll upgrade them to proper fs corruption messages while I'm at
it.
--D
