On Sat, 2024-03-16 at 23:57 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:52:54PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > @@ -4603,9 +4606,12 @@ int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
> > else if (max_links && inode->i_nlink >= max_links)
> > error = -EMLINK;
> > else {
> > - error = try_break_deleg(inode, delegated_inode);
> > - if (!error)
> > - error = dir->i_op->link(old_dentry, dir, new_dentry);
> > + error = try_break_deleg(dir, delegated_inode);
> > + if (!error) {
> > + error = try_break_deleg(inode, delegated_inode);
> > + if (!error)
> > + error = dir->i_op->link(old_dentry, dir, new_dentry);
> > + }
>
> A minor nit: that might be easier to follow as
> error = try_break_deleg(dir, delegated_inode);
> if (!error)
> error = try_break_deleg(inode, delegated_inode);
> if (!error)
> error = dir->i_op->link(old_dentry, dir, new_dentry);
>
> and let the compiler deal with optimizing it - any C compiler is going to be
> able to figure out that one out. vfs_link() is a mix of those styles anyway -
> we have
> if (!error && (inode->i_state & I_LINKABLE)) {
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> inode->i_state &= ~I_LINKABLE;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> }
> immediately afterwards; might as well make that consistent, especially since
> you are getting more shallow nesting that way.
Sounds good. Fixed in my tree.
Thanks for the review so far!
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
