On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 08:49:00AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 04/23/2013 02:38 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> ...
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > index cd29f61..d3e0679 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_trans {
> > int64_t t_res_fdblocks_delta; /* on-disk only chg */
> > int64_t t_frextents_delta;/* superblock freextents chg*/
> > int64_t t_res_frextents_delta; /* on-disk only chg */
> > -#ifdef DEBUG
> > +#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> > int64_t t_ag_freeblks_delta; /* debugging counter */
> > int64_t t_ag_flist_delta; /* debugging counter */
> > int64_t t_ag_btree_delta; /* debugging counter */
> >
>
> I see some ASSERT() calls using these counters but the macros that
> manage them appear to be defined against DEBUG only (further down in
> xfs_trans.h). This looks like it would lead to spurious warnings..?
Yes, you are right - it should lead to warnings being emitted, but I
didn't see any when running xfstests. I'll fix it up.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
