On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:11:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/24/15 5:59 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > When doing RENAME_WHITEOUT, we now have to lock 5 inodes into the
> > rename transaction. This means we need to update
> > xfs_sort_for_rename() and xfs_lock_inodes() to handle up to 5
> > inodes. Because of the vagaries of rename, this means we could have
> > anywhere between 3 and 5 inodes locked into the transaction....
> > While xfs_lock_inodes() does not need anything other than an assert
> > telling us we are passing more inodes that we ever thought we should
> > see, it could do with a logic rework to remove all the indenting.
> > This is not a functional change - it just makes the code a lot
> > easier to read.
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > @@ -2681,19 +2668,22 @@ xfs_remove(
> > /*
> > * Enter all inodes for a rename transaction into a sorted array.
> > */
> > +#define __XFS_SORT_INODES 5
> > STATIC void
> > xfs_sort_for_rename(
> > - xfs_inode_t *dp1, /* in: old (source) directory inode */
> > - xfs_inode_t *dp2, /* in: new (target) directory inode */
> > - xfs_inode_t *ip1, /* in: inode of old entry */
> > - xfs_inode_t *ip2, /* in: inode of new entry, if it
> > - already exists, NULL otherwise. */
> > - xfs_inode_t **i_tab,/* out: array of inode returned, sorted */
> > - int *num_inodes) /* out: number of inodes in array */
> > + struct xfs_inode *dp1, /* in: old (source) directory inode */
> > + struct xfs_inode *dp2, /* in: new (target) directory inode */
> > + struct xfs_inode *ip1, /* in: inode of old entry */
> > + struct xfs_inode *ip2, /* in: inode of new entry */
> > + struct xfs_inode *wino, /* in: whiteout inode */
> I'm not 100% morally opposed, but you still have a wino lurking around here ;)
Ah, I missed that one when splitting the patch. Will fix.