Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:36:01AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
@@ -1025,12 +1027,27 @@ static int fastcall link_path_walk(const
mntget(save.mnt);
result = __link_path_walk(name, nd);
- if (result == -ESTALE) {
+ while (result == -ESTALE) {
+ /*
+ * If no progress was made looking up the pathname,
+ * then stop and return ENOENT instead of ESTALE.
+ */
+ if (nd->dentry == save.dentry) {
+ result = -ENOENT;
+ break;
+ }
*nd = save;
dget(nd->dentry);
mntget(nd->mnt);
nd->flags |= LOOKUP_REVAL;
result = __link_path_walk(name, nd);
+ /*
+ * If no progress was made this time, then return
+ * ENOENT instead of ESTALE because no recovery
+ * is possible to recover the stale file handle.
+ */
+ if (result == -ESTALE && nd->dentry == save.dentry)
+ result = -ENOENT;
}
dput(save.dentry);
Why do you need both of these tests? The first one should be enough,
surely?
Yes, good point.
@@ -1268,8 +1285,8 @@ int path_lookup_open(int dfd, const char
* @create_mode: create intent flags
*/
static int path_lookup_create(int dfd, const char *name,
- unsigned int lookup_flags, struct nameidata *nd,
- int open_flags, int create_mode)
+ unsigned int lookup_flags, struct nameidata *nd,
+ int open_flags, int create_mode)
Gratuitous reformatting?
Elimination of an overly long line?
@@ -1712,7 +1729,10 @@ int open_namei(int dfd, const char *path
int acc_mode, error;
struct path path;
struct dentry *dir;
- int count = 0;
+ int count;
+
+top:
+ count = 0;
acc_mode = ACC_MODE(flag);
@@ -1739,7 +1759,8 @@ int open_namei(int dfd, const char *path
/*
* Create - we need to know the parent.
*/
- error = path_lookup_create(dfd,pathname,LOOKUP_PARENT,nd,flag,mode);
+ error = path_lookup_create(dfd, pathname, LOOKUP_PARENT, nd,
+ flag, mode);
if (error)
return error;
@@ -1812,10 +1833,17 @@ ok:
return 0;
exit_dput:
+ if (error == -ESTALE)
+ d_drop(path.dentry);
dput_path(&path, nd);
exit:
if (!IS_ERR(nd->intent.open.file))
release_open_intent(nd);
+ if (error == -ESTALE) {
+ d_drop(nd->dentry);
+ path_release(nd);
+ goto top;
+ }
I wonder if a tail-call might not work better here.
"Tail-call"?
Thanx...
ps
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
