On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:09:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 03:28:24PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

Fix up all the compiler warnings about unused variables that have crept in.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <redacted>
---
 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c |    9 +++------
 fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c          |    4 ++++
 fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c       |    4 ++++
 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
index fb310d0..31840ca 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_inode_fork.c

@@ -1499,14 +1499,11 @@ xfs_iext_realloc_indirect(
 	xfs_ifork_t	*ifp,		/* inode fork pointer */
 	int		new_size)	/* new indirection array size */
 {
-	int		nlists;		/* number of irec's (ex lists) */
-	int		size;		/* current indirection array size */
-
 	ASSERT(ifp->if_flags & XFS_IFEXTIREC);
-	nlists = ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ;
-	size = nlists * sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t);
 	ASSERT(ifp->if_real_bytes);
-	ASSERT((new_size >= 0) && (new_size != size));
+	ASSERT((new_size >= 0) &&
+	       (new_size != ((ifp->if_real_bytes / XFS_IEXT_BUFSZ) *
+			     sizeof(xfs_ext_irec_t))));
 	if (new_size == 0) {
 		xfs_iext_destroy(ifp);
 	} else {

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
index f5d25f5..806b17e 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c

@@ -570,12 +570,16 @@ xfs_buf_item_unlock(
 	bool			aborted;
 	bool			hold;
 	bool			dirty;
+#ifdef DEBUG
 	bool			ordered;
+#endif
 
 	aborted = !!(lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_ABORTED);
 	hold = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_HOLD);
 	dirty = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_DIRTY);
+#ifdef DEBUG
 	ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
+#endif

I'd revert the last patch that changed this code (because it's
busted!) and just do this here:

+#ifdef DEBUG
	bool                    ordered = !!(bip->bli_flags & XFS_BLI_ORDERED);
+#endif

Also, feel free to rebase for-next to get rid of that last patch -
just like linux-next, for-next isn't meant to be 100% stable. IMO
it's better at this point to rebase for-next to remove/correct
mistakes than to have commits in the tree that don't work....

Ok.  Sorry about the noise, everyone.

--D

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html