merged into cifs-2.6.git for-next On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:18:49 -0400 > Chengyu Song <csong84@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> posix_lock_file_wait may fail under certain circumstances, and its result is >> usually checked/returned. But given the complexity of cifs, I'm not sure if >> the result is intentially left unchecked and always expected to succeed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chengyu Song <csong84@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/cifs/file.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c >> index a94b3e6..beef67b 100644 >> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c >> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c >> @@ -1553,8 +1553,8 @@ cifs_setlk(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock, __u32 type, >> rc = server->ops->mand_unlock_range(cfile, flock, xid); >> >> out: >> - if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) >> - posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock); >> + if (flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX && !rc) >> + rc = posix_lock_file_wait(file, flock); >> return rc; >> } >> > > (cc'ing Pavel since he wrote a lot of this code) > > I think your patch looks correct -- if we (for instance) get a memory > allocation failure while trying to set the local lock then I think we > probably don't want to return success. So... > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
