From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932310Ab1JXMrv (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:47:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11676 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932392Ab1JXMro (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:47:44 -0400 From: Steven Whitehouse To: cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Steven Whitehouse Subject: [PATCH 13/24] GFS2: Remove obsolete assert Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:48:27 +0100 Message-Id: <1319460518-9046-14-git-send-email-swhiteho@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1319460518-9046-1-git-send-email-swhiteho@redhat.com> References: <1319460518-9046-1-git-send-email-swhiteho@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Given that a resource group has been locked, there is no reason why we should not be able to allocate as many blocks as are free. The al_requested parameter should really be considered as a minimum number of blocks to be available. Should this limit be overshot, there are other mechanisms which will prevent over allocation. Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse diff --git a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c index 5bfb970..08b3a80 100644 --- a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c +++ b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c @@ -1077,15 +1077,8 @@ int gfs2_inplace_reserve_i(struct gfs2_inode *ip, void gfs2_inplace_release(struct gfs2_inode *ip) { - struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = GFS2_SB(&ip->i_inode); struct gfs2_alloc *al = ip->i_alloc; - if (gfs2_assert_warn(sdp, al->al_alloced <= al->al_requested) == -1) - fs_warn(sdp, "al_alloced = %u, al_requested = %u " - "al_file = %s, al_line = %u\n", - al->al_alloced, al->al_requested, al->al_file, - al->al_line); - if (al->al_rgd_gh.gh_gl) gfs2_glock_dq_uninit(&al->al_rgd_gh); } -- 1.7.4.4