xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH 0/7] inode allocation cleanups

To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/7] inode allocation cleanups
From: "Alex Elder" <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:12:50 -0500
Cc: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20090825185644.GA21563@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AcoltcsPUBDDeXVES1uPr8Op+gTAWwAAfu7g
Thread-topic: [PATCH 0/7] inode allocation cleanups
> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:57 PM
> To: Alex Elder
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] inode allocation cleanups
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:57:16PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > # [PATCH 5/7] xfs: untangle xfs_dialloc   Christoph Hellwig
> >     No cursor cleanup on WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN() just after 
> "if (pagno == agno)".
> >     (Maybe I'm misreading the patch.)  I realize this is 
> still better than the
> >     ASSERT() in place currently, but maybe it should be 
> WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO(error0)
> >     instead.
> 
> Good catch, the two in xfs_dialloc should indeed be 
> WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTOs.
> For the one in xfs_ialloc_next_rec.
> 
> 
> Below is the updated version of the patch, still needs to run through
> XFSQA again:
. . .

I did not review this one as carefully, but I see that you changed
those two spots to WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO() calls and I assume that's
all that's really changed.

Looks good.

                                        -Alex

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