Re: [PATCH] xfs: re-organize XFS_ILOCK asserts in xfs_itruncate_extents() [V2]

[Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Please, discard this patch, changes in logic 


On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:51:50AM -0500, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> An logically OR'red assert for check an inode locked in XFS_ILOCK_EXCL and
> XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL looks better than the old way, avoiding possible mistakes 
> while
> readin the code
> 
> V2: Fix a doubled assert in i_count left in V1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index 66282dc..b05c361 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -1395,9 +1395,9 @@ xfs_itruncate_extents(
>       int                     error = 0;
>       int                     done = 0;
>  
> -     ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL));
> -     ASSERT(!atomic_read(&VFS_I(ip)->i_count) ||
> +     ASSERT(xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL) ||
>              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);
> -- 
> 1.8.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
Carlos