| Message ID | 20240930104217.2184941-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [next] xfs: remove the redundant xfs_alloc_log_agf | expand |
Hello. What do you mean with the [next] tag in the subject, instead of usual [PATCH] tag? On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 06:42:17PM GMT, Long Li wrote: > There are two invocations of xfs_alloc_log_agf in xfs_alloc_put_freelist. > The AGF does not change between the two calls. Although this does not pose > any practical problems, it seems like a small mistake. Therefore, fix it > by removing the first xfs_alloc_log_agf invocation. > > Signed-off-by: Long Li <leo.lilong@huawei.com> > --- > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c > index 59326f84f6a5..cce32b2f3ffd 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c > @@ -3159,8 +3159,6 @@ xfs_alloc_put_freelist( > logflags |= XFS_AGF_BTREEBLKS; > } > > - xfs_alloc_log_agf(tp, agbp, logflags); > - Hmm.. Isn't this logged twice because of lazy-count? Carlos > ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flcount) <= xfs_agfl_size(mp)); > > agfl_bno = xfs_buf_to_agfl_bno(agflbp); > -- > 2.39.2 > >
diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c index 59326f84f6a5..cce32b2f3ffd 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c @@ -3159,8 +3159,6 @@ xfs_alloc_put_freelist( logflags |= XFS_AGF_BTREEBLKS; } - xfs_alloc_log_agf(tp, agbp, logflags); - ASSERT(be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flcount) <= xfs_agfl_size(mp)); agfl_bno = xfs_buf_to_agfl_bno(agflbp);
There are two invocations of xfs_alloc_log_agf in xfs_alloc_put_freelist. The AGF does not change between the two calls. Although this does not pose any practical problems, it seems like a small mistake. Therefore, fix it by removing the first xfs_alloc_log_agf invocation. Signed-off-by: Long Li <leo.lilong@huawei.com> --- fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)