From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p4P0XBog106072 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 19:33:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfs: do not use unchecked extent indices in xfs_bunmapi From: Alex Elder In-Reply-To: <20110511150712.421348825@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20110511150402.258164661@bombadil.infradead.org> <20110511150712.421348825@bombadil.infradead.org> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:31:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1306283502.2823.95.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: aelder@sgi.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:04 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Make sure to only call xfs_iext_get_ext after we've validate the extent index > when moving on to the next index in xfs_bunmapi. Also remove the old > workaround for too large indices that has been superceeded by the proper > fix in xfs_bmap_del_extent. > > Based on an earlier patch from Lachlan McIlroy. This looks good, but I'd like to see this patch and patch 3/9 re-done to more cleanly separate their purposes (as I mentioned in my comments on patch 3). Reviewed-by: Alex Elder > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs