On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Remove asserts in xfs_iflush_fork that would call xfs_iext_get_ext with
> a potentially invalid extent buffer index.
>
> Based on an earlier patch from Lachlan McIlroy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
This states that it's invalid to attempt to
request the first (0th) extent, because it's
invalid if the fork has no extents, right?
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c 2011-05-11 10:18:39.555233397 +0200
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c 2011-05-11 12:04:24.099733330 +0200
> @@ -2557,12 +2557,9 @@ xfs_iflush_fork(
> case XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS:
> ASSERT((ifp->if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS) ||
> !(iip->ili_format.ilf_fields & extflag[whichfork]));
> - ASSERT((xfs_iext_get_ext(ifp, 0) != NULL) ||
> - (ifp->if_bytes == 0));
> - ASSERT((xfs_iext_get_ext(ifp, 0) == NULL) ||
> - (ifp->if_bytes > 0));
> if ((iip->ili_format.ilf_fields & extflag[whichfork]) &&
> (ifp->if_bytes > 0)) {
> + ASSERT(xfs_iext_get_ext(ifp, 0));
> ASSERT(XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) > 0);
> (void)xfs_iextents_copy(ip, (xfs_bmbt_rec_t *)cp,
> whichfork);
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
