On Fri, May 08 2020, David Howells wrote: > Hi Linus, Trond, Anna, > > Can you pull these fixes for cachefiles and NFS's use of fscache? Should > they go through the NFS tree or directly upstream? The things fixed are:
hi David,
thanks for these fscache fixes. Here is another for your consideration.
NeilBrown
From: NeilBrown <ne...@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:32:25 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] cachefiles: fix inverted ASSERTion.
bmap() returns a negative result precisely when a_ops->bmap is NULL.
A recent patch converted
ASSERT(inode->i_mapping->a_ops->bmap);
to an assertion that bmap(inode, ...) returns a negative number.
This inverts the sense of the assertion.
So change it back : ASSERT(ret == 0)
Fixes: 10d83e11a582 ("cachefiles: drop direct usage of ->bmap method.")
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <ne...@suse.de>
---
fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
index 1dc97f2d6201..a4573c96660c 100644
--- a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
+++ b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@ int cachefiles_read_or_alloc_page(struct fscache_retrieval
*op,
block <<= shift;
ret = bmap(inode, &block);
- ASSERT(ret < 0);
+ ASSERT(ret == 0);
_debug("%llx -> %llx",
(unsigned long long) (page->index << shift),
--
2.26.2
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
