Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | NeilBrown <> | Date | Tue, 12 May 2020 08:38:10 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] cachefiles, nfs: Fixes |
| |
On Fri, May 08 2020, David Howells wrote:
> Hi Linus, Trond, Anna, > > Can you pull these fixes for cachefiles and NFS's use of fscache? Should > they go through the NFS tree or directly upstream? The things fixed are:
hi David, thanks for these fscache fixes. Here is another for your consideration.
NeilBrown
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:32:25 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] cachefiles: fix inverted ASSERTion.
bmap() returns a negative result precisely when a_ops->bmap is NULL.
A recent patch converted
ASSERT(inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap);
to an assertion that bmap(inode, ...) returns a negative number. This inverts the sense of the assertion. So change it back : ASSERT(ret == 0)
Fixes: 10d83e11a582 ("cachefiles: drop direct usage of ->bmap method.") Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> --- fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c index 1dc97f2d6201..a4573c96660c 100644 --- a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c +++ b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c @@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ int cachefiles_read_or_alloc_page(struct fscache_retrieval *op, block <<= shift; ret = bmap(inode, &block); - ASSERT(ret < 0); + ASSERT(ret == 0); _debug("%llx -> %llx", (unsigned long long) (page->index << shift), -- 2.26.2 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |