Meh, you're right, cheated by my eyes. but the suggestion looks nice to avoid another ones to fall in the same mistake, will send a change to it, thanks Mark On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 08:14:12AM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 01/28/13 08:04, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > >There is no reason to ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)); twice, so, > >remove one of these ASSERT calls > > > >Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino<cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > >index 66282dc..25226ea 100644 > >--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > >+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > >@@ -1396,8 +1396,7 @@ xfs_itruncate_extents( > > int done = 0; > > > > ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)); > >- ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) || > >- xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL)); > >+ ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count)); > > ASSERT(new_size<= XFS_ISIZE(ip)); > > ASSERT(tp->t_flags& XFS_TRANS_PERM_LOG_RES); > > ASSERT(ip->i_itemp != NULL); > > You removed an XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL assert not a duplicate > XFS_ILOCK_EXCL assert. It maybe more obvious if the > first assert read: > > ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL) || > xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL)); > ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count)); > ... > > --Mark Tinguely. -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
