On 05/29/2013 04:12 PM, shencanquan wrote: > On 2013/5/29 15:57, Jeff Liu wrote: >> Thanks for your patch, Joseph. >> >> On 05/29/2013 10:42 AM, Joseph Qi wrote: >> >>> If we use le32_add_cpu to set ocfs2_dinode i_flags, it may lead to the >>> corresponding flag corrupted. So we should change it to bitwise and/or >>> operation. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Qi<[email protected]> >>> --- >>> fs/ocfs2/namei.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c >>> index 04ee1b5..3a5269a 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/namei.c >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/namei.c >>> @@ -522,7 +522,7 @@ static int __ocfs2_mknod_locked(struct inode *dir, >>> >>> fe->i_last_eb_blk = 0; >>> strcpy(fe->i_signature, OCFS2_INODE_SIGNATURE); >>> - le32_add_cpu(&fe->i_flags, OCFS2_VALID_FL); >>> + fe->i_flags |= cpu_to_le32(OCFS2_VALID_FL); >>> fe->i_atime = fe->i_ctime = fe->i_mtime = >>> cpu_to_le64(CURRENT_TIME.tv_sec); >>> fe->i_mtime_nsec = fe->i_ctime_nsec = fe->i_atime_nsec = >>> @@ -2044,7 +2044,7 @@ static int ocfs2_orphan_add(struct ocfs2_super >>> *osb, >>> goto leave; >>> } >>> >>> - le32_add_cpu(&fe->i_flags, OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL); >>> + fe->i_flags |= cpu_to_le32(OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL); >>> OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_flags&= ~OCFS2_INODE_SKIP_ORPHAN_DIR; >>> >>> /* Record which orphan dir our inode now resides >>> @@ -2434,7 +2434,7 @@ int ocfs2_mv_orphaned_inode_to_new(struct inode >>> *dir, >>> } >>> >>> di = (struct ocfs2_dinode *)di_bh->b_data; >>> - le32_add_cpu(&di->i_flags, -OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL); >>> + di->i_flags&= cpu_to_le32(~OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL); >> Hmm? This is wrong. Instead it should be: >> di->i_flags&= ~cpu_to_le32(OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL); > > in ocfs2_remove_inode function , it has the following code: > di->i_dtime = cpu_to_le64(CURRENT_TIME.tv_sec); > di->i_flags &= cpu_to_le32(~(OCFS2_VALID_FL | OCFS2_ORPHANED_FL)); > > I think at first clear the flag and then convert to the little end.
Call cpu_to_xxx(~value) or (~cpu_to_xxx(value)) will be evaluated end up with the same result, but the later manner would looks a bit neater IMO. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
