From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Gruenbacher Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 21:00:55 +0100 Subject: [Cluster-devel] kernel BUG at fs/gfs2/inode.h:64 In-Reply-To: <3vkfw9efgsm8uwdc0kp83e7g.1547059260503@email.citrix.com> References: <2022831.JNBRD0B6hm@dhcp-3-135.uk.xensource.com> <3vkfw9efgsm8uwdc0kp83e7g.1547059260503@email.citrix.com> Message-ID: List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 19:44, Mark Syms wrote: > > So, actually the original comparison in the assert (dodgy scaling factor not withstanding) was probably correct in that we don't ever want to remove all blocks from the inode as one of them is used for the inode itself? Or do we still think it should allow for change to be the negative of current blocks? It doesn't make a difference; all we care about is that we don't go negative. I think the updated comparison better reflects that goal. Andreas