xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: writepage always has buffers

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: writepage always has buffers
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:43:09 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100628143457.GC5473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20100628143457.GC5473@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: aelder@xxxxxxx
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 10:34 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> These days we always have buffers thanks to ->page_mkwrite.  And we already
> have an assert a few lines above tripping in case that was not true due to
> a bug.

Should the ASSERT() be made stronger (i.e., BUG_ON())?
Looks to me like we'll crash if it ever happens in a
non-debug kernel, and a BUG() call would more directly
tell us what the problem was...

In an case, this looks OK to me.

> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>

> Index: xfs-dev/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs-dev.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c  2010-06-28 11:59:29.590253914 
> +0200
> +++ xfs-dev/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c       2010-06-28 11:59:48.341006462 
> +0200
> @@ -1072,13 +1072,6 @@ xfs_vm_writepage(
>       if ((current->flags & PF_FSTRANS) && (delalloc || unwritten))
>               goto out_fail;
>  
> -     /*
> -      * Delay hooking up buffer heads until we have
> -      * made our go/no-go decision.
> -      */
> -     if (!page_has_buffers(page))
> -             create_empty_buffers(page, 1 << inode->i_blkbits, 0);
> -
>       /* Is this page beyond the end of the file? */
>       offset = i_size_read(inode);
>       end_index = offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs



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