Re: [PATCH] xfs: remove unneeded ASSERT from xfs_itruncate_extents

[Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>]

On 01/28/13 08:04, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> There is no reason to ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)); twice, so,
> remove one of these ASSERT calls
>
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino<cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index 66282dc..25226ea 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -1396,8 +1396,7 @@ xfs_itruncate_extents(
>         int                     done = 0;
>
>         ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL));
> -       ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) ||
> -              xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL));
> +       ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count));
>         ASSERT(new_size<= XFS_ISIZE(ip));
>         ASSERT(tp->t_flags&  XFS_TRANS_PERM_LOG_RES);
>         ASSERT(ip->i_itemp != NULL);
You removed an XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL assert not a duplicate
XFS_ILOCK_EXCL assert. It maybe more obvious if the
first assert read:

        ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL) ||
               xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL));
        ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count));
...

--Mark Tinguely.