On Sun, Jul 20, 2025 at 11:34:06PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The patch below should fix the issue. But I wonder if we should split > the flags a bit better to make things more obvious. We did in [1], but did you have something else in mind? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20220321051750.400056-18-chandan.babu@xxxxxxxxxx/ > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_itable.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_itable.c > index c8c9b8d8309f..302efe54e2af 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_itable.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_itable.c > @@ -457,7 +457,8 @@ xfs_inumbers( > * locking abilities to detect cycles in the inobt without deadlocking. > */ > tp = xfs_trans_alloc_empty(breq->mp); > - error = xfs_inobt_walk(breq->mp, tp, breq->startino, breq->flags, > + error = xfs_inobt_walk(breq->mp, tp, breq->startino, > + breq->flags & XFS_IBULK_SAME_AG, That's correct -- the only IBULK flag with meaning for xfs_inobt_walk is SAME_AG because the others affect bulkstat output. But it might be clearer to make this explicit the same way that xfs_bulkstat does: unsigned int iwalk_flags = 0; if (breq->flags & XFS_IBULK_SAME_AG) iwalk_flags |= XFS_IWALK_SAME_AG; error = xfs_inobt_walk(..., iwalk_flags, ...); This probably should have been included in [1] so: Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v5.19 Fixes: 5b35d922c52798 ("xfs: Decouple XFS_IBULK flags from XFS_IWALK flags") --D
