Please, discard this patch, changes in logic On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:51:50AM -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 > > V2: Fix a doubled assert in i_count left in V1 > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > index 66282dc..b05c361 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c > @@ -1395,9 +1395,9 @@ 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(new_size <= XFS_ISIZE(ip)); > ASSERT(tp->t_flags & XFS_TRANS_PERM_LOG_RES); > ASSERT(ip->i_itemp != NULL); > -- > 1.8.1 > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
