On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:29:48PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 07:25:53PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > We always access and check the AGI bucket entry for the unlinked > > list even if we are not going to need it either for lookup or remove > > purposes. Move the code that accesses the AGI to the code that > > modifes the AGI, hence keeping the AGI accesses local to the code > > that needs to modify it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++------------------------------ > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > index b098e5df07e7..4f616e1b64dc 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > > @@ -1918,44 +1918,53 @@ xfs_inactive( > > */ > > > > /* > > - * Point the AGI unlinked bucket at an inode and log the results. The caller > > - * is responsible for validating the old value. > > + * Point the AGI unlinked bucket at an inode and log the results. The caller > > + * passes in the expected current agino the bucket points at via @cur_agino so > > + * we can validate that we are about to remove the inode we expect to be > > + * removing from the AGI bucket. > > */ > > -STATIC int > > +static int > > xfs_iunlink_update_bucket( > > struct xfs_trans *tp, > > xfs_agnumber_t agno, > > struct xfs_buf *agibp, > > - xfs_agino_t old_agino, > > + xfs_agino_t cur_agino, > > Hm. So I think I understand the new role of this function better now > that this patch moves into this function the checking of the bucket > pointer and whatnot. Would it be difficult to merge this patch with > patch 4? I really didn't want to remove the code that used the "head_agino" for verification until I had moved all the list traversal functionality to use the in memory unlinked list and had verified that was correct.... I think merging them it could be done, but it will most likely result in having to rebase and retest every subsequent patch... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
