> You've tossed xfs_isize_check in the round filer, but you didn't mention
> that in your commit message. Isn't this still useful code?
It falls under the removal of a few asserts in the debug build. I don't
think it's a useful check.
> > - if (ip->i_size != new_size) {
> > - ip->i_d.di_size = new_size;
> > - ip->i_size = new_size;
> > - }
> > -
> > - ASSERT(new_size != 0 || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0);
>
> You didn't pull this assert along with
>
> > - ASSERT(new_size != 0 || ip->i_d.di_nextents == 0);
>
> this one into xfs_qm_scall_trunc_qfile. Was that intentional?
We never have delayed blocks on the quota files, so there's not much
of a point to have this assert.
> > - error = xfs_itruncate_data(&tp, ip, 0);
> > + ip->i_d.di_size = 0;
> > + ip->i_size = 0;
> > + xfs_trans_log_inode(tp, ip, XFS_ILOG_CORE);
> > +
> > + error = xfs_itruncate_extents(&tp, ip, XFS_DATA_FORK, 0);
>
> It it worth a comment that you log the size here because of the
> possibility of another file being allocated these extents in the face of
> a crash?
I don't think there's a point in duplicating that comment. Eventually
I'll see if we can simply use the existing truncate code for the quota
files anyway.
> > - error = xfs_itruncate_data(&tp, ip, 0);
> > + ip->i_d.di_size = 0;
> > + ip->i_size = 0;
> > + xfs_trans_log_inode(tp, ip, XFS_ILOG_CORE);
>
> Maybe a comment here too?
We log inodes in tons of places without adding a comment ever time.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
