[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Fix recovery slot bumping

[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Fix recovery slot bumping

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

Get rid of the assumption that the number of slots can at most increase by
RECOVER_SIZE_INC (16) in set_recover_size.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
---
 fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
index 4361804646d8..2bc7a334aa0a 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
@@ -1035,12 +1035,12 @@ static int set_recover_size(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, struct dlm_slot *slots,
 	}
 
 	old_size = ls->ls_recover_size;
-
-	if (old_size >= max_jid + 1)
+	new_size = old_size;
+	while (new_size < max_jid + 1)
+		new_size += RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
+	if (old_size == new_size)
 		return 0;
 
-	new_size = old_size + RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
-
 	submit = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
 	result = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
 	if (!submit || !result) {
-- 
2.20.1

[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Fix recovery slot bumping

[Bob Peterson]

----- Original Message -----
> Get rid of the assumption that the number of slots can at most increase by
> RECOVER_SIZE_INC (16) in set_recover_size.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> index 4361804646d8..2bc7a334aa0a 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> @@ -1035,12 +1035,12 @@ static int set_recover_size(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp,
> struct dlm_slot *slots,
>  	}
>  
>  	old_size = ls->ls_recover_size;
> -
> -	if (old_size >= max_jid + 1)
> +	new_size = old_size;
> +	while (new_size < max_jid + 1)
> +		new_size += RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
> +	if (old_size == new_size)
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	new_size = old_size + RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
> -
>  	submit = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
>  	result = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
>  	if (!submit || !result) {
> --
> 2.20.1

Yes, that works, although I think it's more clear to say:
+	if (new_size == old_size)
than:
+	if (old_size == new_size)
IOW, it just sounds better. But whatever. It works either way.

Bob