Re: xfs mknod regression

Lachlan McIlroy
2007-12-19T01:12:17Z

David Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:37:45AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 05:36:42PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> This was broken by my '[XFS] simplify xfs_create/mknod/symlink prototype',
>>> which assigned the re-shuffled ondisk dev_t back to the rdev variable in
>>> xfs_vn_mknod. Because of that i_rdev is set to the ondisk dev_t instead
>>> of the linux dev_t later down the function.
>>>
>>> Fortunately the fix for it is trivial: we can just remove the
>>> assignment because xfs_revalidate_inode has done the proper job before
>>> unlocking the inode.
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>>
>>> Index: linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6-xfs.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c 2007-12-18 18:23:32.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ linux-2.6-xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_iops.c 2007-12-18 18:23:43.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -345,9 +345,7 @@ xfs_vn_mknod(
>>> ASSERT(vp);
>>> ip = vn_to_inode(vp);
>>>
>>> - if (S_ISCHR(mode) || S_ISBLK(mode))
>>> - ip->i_rdev = rdev;
>>> - else if (S_ISDIR(mode))
>>> + if (S_ISDIR(mode))
>>> xfs_validate_fields(ip);
>>> d_instantiate(dentry, ip);
>>> xfs_validate_fields(dir);
>> Thanks for this, Christoph - I'll run some tests on it and check it in.
>
> Can I get an eyeball or two on the qa test below so i can check it in at the
> same time?
>

QA test looks fine Dave.