[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] gfs2: Fix recovery slot bumping
Bob Peterson
rpeterso at redhat.com
Mon Aug 26 19:58:02 UTC 2019
----- Original Message -----
> Get rid of the assumption that the number of slots can at most increase by
> RECOVER_SIZE_INC (16) in set_recover_size.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba at redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> index 4361804646d8..2bc7a334aa0a 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> @@ -1035,12 +1035,12 @@ static int set_recover_size(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp,
> struct dlm_slot *slots,
> }
>
> old_size = ls->ls_recover_size;
> -
> - if (old_size >= max_jid + 1)
> + new_size = old_size;
> + while (new_size < max_jid + 1)
> + new_size += RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
> + if (old_size == new_size)
> return 0;
>
> - new_size = old_size + RECOVER_SIZE_INC;
> -
> submit = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
> result = kcalloc(new_size, sizeof(uint32_t), GFP_NOFS);
> if (!submit || !result) {
> --
> 2.20.1
Yes, that works, although I think it's more clear to say:
+ if (new_size == old_size)
than:
+ if (old_size == new_size)
IOW, it just sounds better. But whatever. It works either way.
Bob
More information about the Cluster-devel
mailing list