xfs: fix len comparison in xfs_extent_busy_trim
PATCH 1/1 xfs: fix len comparison in xfs_extent_busy_trim
The length is now passed by reference, so the assertion has to be updated to match the other changes, as pointed out by this W=1 warning:
fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c: In function 'xfs_extent_busy_trim':fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c:356:13: error: ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero [-Werror=extra]
Fixes ebf55872616c ("xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator")
Signed-off-by Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
--- fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c +1 -1
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ xfs_extent_busy_trim(struct rb_node *rbp;bool ret = false; -ASSERT (len >0 ); +ASSERT (*len >0 );spin_lock (&args->pag->pagb_lock); restart:
Signature · 1 line
2.9.0
Thanks Arnd, this looks good:
Reviewed-by Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Darrick J. Wong
AppliedQuoted 8 lines · Arnd Bergmann
The length is now passed by reference, so the assertion has to be updated to match the other changes, as pointed out by this W=1 warning:
fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c: In function 'xfs_extent_busy_trim':fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c:356:13: error: ordered comparison of pointer with integer zero [-Werror=extra]Fixes ebf55872616c ("xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator")Signed-off-by Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Thanks, applied (4.11).
--D
Quoted 20 lines
--- fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)fs/xfs/xfs_extent_busy.c +1
-1@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ xfs_extent_busy_trim(struct rb_node *rbp;bool ret = false; -ASSERT (len >0 ); +ASSERT (*len >0 );spin_lock (&args->pag->pagb_lock); restart:Signature · 1 line
2.9.0