Re: [PATCH 08/13] ext4: simplify i_state checks in __ext4_update_other_inode_time()
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date: 2021-01-07 13:25:11
Also in:
linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs
On Mon 04-01-21 16:54:47, Eric Biggers wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Eric Biggers <redacted> Since I_DIRTY_TIME and I_DIRTY_INODE are mutually exclusive in i_state, there's no need to check for I_DIRTY_TIME && !I_DIRTY_INODE. Just check for I_DIRTY_TIME. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <redacted> --- fs/ext4/inode.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c index 4cc6c7834312f..9e34541715968 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c@@ -4962,14 +4962,12 @@ static void __ext4_update_other_inode_time(struct super_block *sb, return; if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW | - I_DIRTY_INODE)) || - ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) == 0)) + I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME) return;
This is OK.
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
- if (((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
- I_DIRTY_INODE)) == 0) &&
- (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)) {
+ if ((inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE | I_NEW |
+ I_DIRTY_TIME)) != I_DIRTY_TIME) {But this condition is negated AFAICT. We should have == I_DIRTY_TIME here AFAICT. Honza -- Jan Kara [off-list ref] SUSE Labs, CR