On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 05:10:04PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2020 12:53:59 PM IST Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > XFS_IFORK_Q is to be used in boolean context, not for a size. This > > doesn't make a difference in practice as size is only checked for > > 0, but this keeps the logic sane. > > > > Wouldn't XFS_IFORK_ASIZE() be a better fit since it gives the space used by the > attr fork inside an inode's literal area? > I had the same thought. It's not clear to me what size is really supposed to be between the file size for a data fork and fork offset for the attr fork. I was also wondering if this should use XFS_IFORK_DSIZE(), but that won't be conditional based on population of the fork. At the same time, I don't think i_size != 0 necessarily correlates with the existence of blocks. The file could be completely sparse or could have any number of post-eof preallocated extents. Brian > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/scrub/bmap.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/bmap.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/bmap.c > > index add8598eacd5d..283424d6d2bb6 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/bmap.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/bmap.c > > @@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ xchk_bmap_check_rmaps( > > size = i_size_read(VFS_I(sc->ip)); > > break; > > case XFS_ATTR_FORK: > > - size = XFS_IFORK_Q(sc->ip); > > + size = XFS_IFORK_BOFF(sc->ip); > > break; > > default: > > size = 0; > > > > > -- > chandan > > >
