On 3/5/14, 4:36 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:19:19AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Yeah, that does seem better! Thanks for spotting that.
>>
>> The difference when calling inode_item_unlock is a bit more zeroing-out:
>>
>> ip->i_transp = NULL;
>>
>> iip->ili_flags = 0;
>>
>> I'm not sure of the implications of that offhand, TBH.
>>
>> Dave, hold off on my commit I guess ;)
>
> i_itransp nulling is obviously harmless as we are freeing the inode
> right after.
Not in all cases, right?
static void
inode_item_unlock(
xfs_inode_log_item_t *iip)
{
xfs_inode_t *ip = iip->ili_inode;
/* Clear the transaction pointer in the inode. */
ip->i_transp = NULL;
iip->ili_flags = 0;
if (!iip->ili_lock_flags)
libxfs_iput(ip, 0);
else
iip->ili_lock_flags = 0; // <-- not here.
}
> ili_flags is always 0 in libxfs and we might as well just remove it.
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
