On 8/22/14, 10:01 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 8/22/14, 8:19 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 08:00:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> @@ -480,15 +484,40 @@ xfs_rtmodify_summary(
>>> }
>>> }
>>> /*
>>> - * Point to the summary information, modify and log it.
>>> + * Point to the summary information, modify/log it, and/or copy it out.
>>> */
>>> sp = XFS_SUMPTR(mp, bp, so);
>>> - *sp += delta;
>>> - xfs_trans_log_buf(tp, bp, (uint)((char *)sp - (char *)bp->b_addr),
>>> - (uint)((char *)sp - (char *)bp->b_addr + sizeof(*sp) - 1));
>>> + if (delta) {
>>> + uint first = (uint)((char *)sp - (char *)bp->b_addr);
>>> +
>>> + *sp += delta;
>>> + xfs_trans_log_buf(tp, bp, first, first + sizeof(*sp) - 1);
>>> + }
>>> + if (sum) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Drop the buffer if we're not asked to remember it.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!rbpp)
>>> + xfs_trans_brelse(tp, bp);
>>
>> This introduces some potentially weird circumstances (e.g., acquire,
>> log, release of a buffer), but I think it's resolved by the next patch.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> does it introduce it, or just highlight it? I thought it was weird too,
> but I think it existed before; that's what prompted me to go looking at
> callers and drop the rbpp checks, FWIW.
Oh, right, if delta & sum,there's a problem if (!rpbb). And I did introduce
that as a new issue. But the code at that point never sees (!rbpp) so I think
it's safe. I could respin patches 3 & 4, to do them in the opposite order,
if desired.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
