xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: review: fsblock zero - don't panic

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: review: fsblock zero - don't panic
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:57:56 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060816064725.GK51703024@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from dgc@xxxxxxx on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:47:25PM +1000
References: <20060810155851.C2591606@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060811032626.GF50254148@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060816142800.D2762042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060816064725.GK51703024@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:47:25PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:28:01PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> ...
>               xfs_cmn_err_fsblock_zero(ip, ret_imap);
> 
> would replace the above mess....

Will do.

> > -   if (!(io->io_flags & XFS_IOCORE_RT)  && !ret_imap->br_startblock) {
> 
> And this one checks ret_imap for block zero, not imap[0].
> 
> One of these original checks was buggy - which one should we be checking,
> ret_imap that is being passed into the function or imap that is what was
> returned  by the XFS_BMAPI call?

The latter I think - I'll look more closely tomorrow, and fix that up.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>