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 (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mB53Mapc029093 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:22:36 -0600 Message-ID: <49389E8F.5000301@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:22:55 +1100 From: Lachlan McIlroy MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use the incore inode size in xfs_file_readdir() References: <49377FBC.5020501@sgi.com> <20081204070827.GB29531@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081204070827.GB29531@infradead.org> Reply-To: lachlan@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 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:59:08PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> We should be using the incore inode size here not the linux inode >> size. The incore inode size is always up to date for directories >> whereas the linux inode size is not updated for directories. >> >> We've hit assertions in xfs_bmap() and traced it back to the linux >> inode size being zero here but the incore size being correct. > > Heh. Looks good, but you can still call ->readdir with a 0 inode size, > so you might want to check for that (actualyl I think other pathes > are goign to take care of it, but..) What if we remove bufsize and pass PAGE_SIZE into xfs_readdir()? No need to worry about a 0 inode size. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs