[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <552BBA15.4040500@plexistor.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:44:05 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
'Christoph Hellwig' <hch@....de>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 'Jens Axboe' <axboe@...com>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression caused by using node_to_bdi()
On 04/13/2015 03:21 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
<>
>> -struct backing_dev_info *inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode);
>> +struct backing_dev_info *__inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode);
>> +
>> +static inline
>> +struct backing_dev_info *inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode)
>> +{
>> + if (!inode || !inode->i_sb)
>> + return __inode_to_bdi(inode);
>> +
>> + return inode->i_sb->s_bdi;
>> +}
> This is wrong for block-device inodes, isn't it?
Rrr yes my bad I meant
+struct backing_dev_info *inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode)
+{
+ if (!inode || !inode->i_sb || !inode->i_sb->s_bdi)
+ return __inode_to_bdi(inode);
+
+ return inode->i_sb->s_bdi;
+}
I was hopping that blockdev_superblock->s_bdi == NULL
because what sb_is_blkdev_sb() is doing is checking
for blockdev_superblock.
>From code audit I do not see where it might be set but
I might have missed it.
Thanks Jan
Boaz
>
> Honza
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists