On Sun, 2002-10-27 at 22:05, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Hi, I'll have to look a bit more closely... but your patch does look correct.
> Back in 2000 (v. 1.279), it was as you suggest, but Steve changed it.
> :) Steve?
I no longer remember the why of this change, I think we can just revert
to this code.
Steve
>
> (The Irix code also has your "new" test.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eric
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, ASANO Masahiro wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question.
> > Why don't we sync the last xfs_inode in xfs_syncsub()?
> > I am wondering if the condition check is wrong... (see below)
> >
> > --
> > Masano
> >
> > --- linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c Thu Oct 24 07:46:17 2002
> > +++ linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c.new Mon Oct 28 11:29:21 2002
> > @@ -1433,7 +1433,7 @@
> > ASSERT(ipointer_in == B_FALSE);
> > ip = ip->i_mnext;
> >
> > - } while (ip->i_mnext != mp->m_inodes);
> > + } while (ip != mp->m_inodes);
> >
> > XFS_MOUNT_IUNLOCK(mp);
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|