On 30.07.2018 01:04, Al Viro wrote:
> From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> we don't need to check is_bad_inode() after the call of
> btrfs_read_locked_inode() - it's exactly the same as checking
> return value for being non-zero.
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 9382e0881900..8f0b2592feb0 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -3777,7 +3777,6 @@ static int btrfs_read_locked_inode(struct inode *inode)
>
> make_bad:
> btrfs_free_path(path);
> - make_bad_inode(inode);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -5708,12 +5707,13 @@ struct inode *btrfs_iget(struct super_block *s, struct btrfs_key *location,
> int ret;
>
> ret = btrfs_read_locked_inode(inode);
> - if (!is_bad_inode(inode)) {
> + if (!ret) {
> inode_tree_add(inode);
> unlock_new_inode(inode);
> if (new)
> *new = 1;
> } else {
> + make_bad_inode(inode);
> unlock_new_inode(inode);
> iput(inode);
> ASSERT(ret < 0);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
