On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > These days we always have buffers thanks to ->page_mkwrite. And we already > have an assert a few lines above tripping in case that was not true due to > a bug. Should the ASSERT() be made stronger (i.e., BUG_ON())? Looks to me like we'll crash if it ever happens in a non-debug kernel, and a BUG() call would more directly tell us what the problem was... In an case, this looks OK to me. > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> > Index: xfs-dev/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c > =================================================================== > --- xfs-dev.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c 2010-06-28 11:59:29.590253914 +0200 > +++ xfs-dev/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c 2010-06-28 11:59:48.341006462 +0200 > @@ -1072,13 +1072,6 @@ xfs_vm_writepage( > if ((current->flags & PF_FSTRANS) && (delalloc || unwritten)) > goto out_fail; > > - /* > - * Delay hooking up buffer heads until we have > - * made our go/no-go decision. > - */ > - if (!page_has_buffers(page)) > - create_empty_buffers(page, 1 << inode->i_blkbits, 0); > - > /* Is this page beyond the end of the file? */ > offset = i_size_read(inode); > end_index = offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
