On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:37:29AM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> - ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink > 0);
> >> + if ((VFS_I(ip)->i_nlink == 0) &&
> >> + !(VFS_I(ip)->i_state & I_LINKABLE))
> >> + ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink > 0);
> >
> > ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink > 0 || (VFS_I(ip)->i_state & I_LINKABLE));
> This is wrong, and it should be
> ASSERT(ip->i_d.di_nlink > 0 || !(VFS_I(ip)->i_state & I_LINKABLE));
Why we want to assrrt that either the link count is bigger than 0,
or that the I_LINKABLE flag is set (for files created using O_TMPFILE)
> >> +
> >> + if ((VFS_I(sip)->i_nlink == 0) &&
> >> + (VFS_I(sip)->i_state & I_LINKABLE))
> >> + tres = &M_RES(mp)->tr_link_tmpfile;
> >> + else
> >> + tres = &M_RES(mp)->tr_link;
> >
> > Just check i_nlink, and for consistency it might make sense to just use
> > the xfs_inode one. The VFS already made sure we don't inodes with
> but struct xfs_inode has no stuff similar to i_nlink....
ip->i_d.di_nlink is the equivalent.
> > I_LINKABLE and a zero link count.
> No, pls see the chunk of code:
> int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct
> dentry *new_dentry)
> {
> ...
> /* Make sure we don't allow creating hardlink to an unlinked file */
> if (inode->i_nlink == 0 && !(inode->i_state & I_LINKABLE))
> error = -ENOENT;
This makes sure we never created a link if the count is zero unless
the I_LINKABLE is set, so we'll never see a zero link count without
I_LINKABLE.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
