> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> index 4cf335b..7bfa527 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -357,7 +357,8 @@ __xfs_sb_from_disk(
> to->sb_rextslog = from->sb_rextslog;
> to->sb_inprogress = from->sb_inprogress;
> to->sb_imax_pct = from->sb_imax_pct;
> - to->sb_icount = be64_to_cpu(from->sb_icount);
> + if (percpu_counter_initialized(&to->sb_icount))
> + percpu_counter_set(&to->sb_icount, be64_to_cpu(from->sb_icount));
Why would the percpu counter not be initialized here? Oh, I guess
this is for xfs_sb_verify(). But why can't xfs_mount_validate_sb simply
operate on the disk endian SB to avoid that whole issue?
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index 6015f54..df5ec55 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -1127,13 +1127,13 @@ xfs_mod_incore_sb_unlocked(
> */
> switch (field) {
> case XFS_SBS_ICOUNT:
> + /* deltas are +/-64, hence the large batch size of 128. */
> + __percpu_counter_add(&mp->m_sb.sb_icount, delta, 128);
> + if (percpu_counter_compare(&mp->m_sb.sb_icount, 0) < 0) {
> ASSERT(0);
> + percpu_counter_add(&mp->m_sb.sb_icount, -delta);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> return 0;
> case XFS_SBS_IFREE:
> lcounter = (long long)mp->m_sb.sb_ifree;
> @@ -1288,8 +1288,11 @@ xfs_mod_incore_sb(
> int status;
>
> #ifdef HAVE_PERCPU_SB
> - ASSERT(field < XFS_SBS_ICOUNT || field > XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS);
> + ASSERT(field < XFS_SBS_IFREE || field > XFS_SBS_FDBLOCKS);
> #endif
> + if (field == XFS_SBS_ICOUNT)
> + return xfs_mod_incore_sb_unlocked(mp, field, delta, rsvd);
> +
Why is this multiplexd through xfs_mod_incore_sb_unlocked while needing
a different locking context? Shouldn't we simply use a different helper
for this case?
> xfs_icsb_cnts_t *cntp;
> int i;
>
> + i = percpu_counter_init(&mp->m_sb.sb_icount, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (i)
> + return ENOMEM;
> +
> mp->m_sb_cnts = alloc_percpu(xfs_icsb_cnts_t);
> - if (mp->m_sb_cnts == NULL)
> + if (!mp->m_sb_cnts) {
> + percpu_counter_destroy(&mp->m_sb.sb_icount);
> return -ENOMEM;
> + }
>
> for_each_online_cpu(i) {
Reusing a variable for both an errno value and a loop iterator is
not very readable, just add an additional "error" variabe.
Also percpu_counter_init returns a proper egative errno value, no need
to turn that into the incorrect postive ENOMEM.
Additionally should this use goto unwining?
> if (idelta) {
> - error = xfs_icsb_modify_counters(mp, XFS_SBS_ICOUNT,
> - idelta, rsvd);
> + error = xfs_mod_incore_sb(mp, XFS_SBS_ICOUNT, idelta, rsvd);
Why go through xfs_mod_incore_sb here instead of directly jumping to
the function that does the work?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
