On 02/10/2014 11:30 PM, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> If acl is equivalent to file mode permission bits, ceph_set_acl()
> needs to remove any existing acl xattr. Use __ceph_setxattr() to
> handle both setting and removing acl xattr cases, it doesn't return
> -ENODATA when there is no acl xattr.
This looks good, however (continuing with our other
discussion) I assume that __set_xattr() will use a
null value rather than 0 value_len to determine whether
to remove the xattr.
And I'll continue to suggest better descriptions. (I
realize English is not your native language but I
really think the description is important, to be
able to verify the code change matches what the
developer intended it to do.) The problem here is
that ceph_set_acl() could return -ENODATA if it
attempted to remove a non-existent ACL attribute,
and that shouldn't happen. (Right?)
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
PS Note that ceph_set_acl() can be made static, and its
only caller, ceph_init_acl() has its return value
ignored in all cases. So in some respects this change
not matter much.
> Signed-off-by: Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ceph/acl.c | 6 +-----
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/acl.c b/fs/ceph/acl.c
> index 4c2d452..accc9f2 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/acl.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/acl.c
> @@ -160,11 +160,7 @@ int ceph_set_acl(struct inode *inode, struct posix_acl *acl, int type)
> goto out_dput;
> }
>
> - if (value)
> - ret = __ceph_setxattr(dentry, name, value, size, 0);
> - else
> - ret = __ceph_removexattr(dentry, name);
> -
> + ret = __ceph_setxattr(dentry, name, value, size, 0);
> if (ret) {
> if (new_mode != old_mode) {
> newattrs.ia_mode = old_mode;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
