On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:52:57AM -0600, Geoffrey Wehrman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > | An logically OR'red assert for check an inode locked in XFS_ILOCK_EXCL and > | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL looks better than the old way, avoiding possible mistakes while > | readin the code > | > | Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> > | --- > | fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 5 +++-- > | 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > | > | diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > | index 66282dc..f7efe77 100644 > | --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > | +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > | @@ -1395,9 +1395,10 @@ xfs_itruncate_extents( > | int error = 0; > | int done = 0; > | > | - ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)); > | - ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) || > | + ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL) || > | xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL)); > | + ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count)); > | + 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); > | -- > | 1.8.1 > > NACK. You are changing the logic of the asserts. The original first > assert indicates that the ILOCK is always locked. The modified asserts > allow eith the ILOCK or the IOLOCK to be locked. This is not correct. > Yeah, makes sense, I thought about a possible logic change, but didn't realize it was really true. Thanks for feedback. forget about this idea then, too much for little gain :) > > Geoffrey -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
