Re: [PATCH 0/5] cachefiles, nfs: Fixes

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1390 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]