On 8/23/2022 8:27 PM, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/cifs/cached_dir.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/cifs/cached_dir.c b/fs/cifs/cached_dir.c
index c2f5b71a3c9f..77880470c7ea 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cached_dir.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cached_dir.c
@@ -47,11 +47,12 @@ int open_cached_dir(unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon,
if (cifs_sb->root == NULL)
return -ENOENT;
+ if (!strlen(path))
+ dentry = cifs_sb->root;
Wouldn't it be safer and more efficient to simply test
"if (path[0] == 0)"?
But, why would a non-null path ever be passed, if it
always fails? Seems like a pointless call in the first
place.
+
if (strlen(path))
Simply "else"? No need to recompute strlen.
Tom.
return -ENOENT;
- dentry = cifs_sb->root;
-
cfid = &tcon->cfids->cfid;
mutex_lock(&cfid->fid_mutex);
if (cfid->is_valid) {
@@ -177,7 +178,8 @@ int open_cached_dir(unsigned int xid, struct cifs_tcon *tcon,
cfid->tcon = tcon;
cfid->is_valid = true;
cfid->dentry = dentry;
- dget(dentry);
+ if (dentry)
+ dget(dentry);
kref_init(&cfid->refcount);
/* BB TBD check to see if oplock level check can be removed below */
