On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 02:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We already have the worst case blocks reserved, so xfs_icsb_modify_counters > won't fail in xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real. In fact we've had an assert > to catch this case since day and it never triggered. So remove the code > to try smaller reservations, and just return the error for that case in > addition to keeping the assert. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> It was a very weird block of code that I never did really understand. It appears to be trying to recover from running out of space by reserving less and retrying. But that means you're not reserving enough to cover worst case, which wouldn't be safe. Anyway, given this function already has an error return path that could handle it if we actually had not pre-reserved enough blocks, this looks good. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
