> > + for (i = 0; i < es->num_entries; i++) {
> > + ep = exfat_get_dentry_cached(es, i);
> > + if (ep->type == EXFAT_UNUSED)
> > + unused_hit = true;
> > + else if (IS_EXFAT_DELETED(ep->type)) {
>
> Although it violates the specification for a deleted entry to follow an unused
> entry, some exFAT implementations could work like this.
>
> Therefore, to improve compatibility, why don't we allow this?
> I believe there will be no functional problem even if this is allowed.
This check existed before this patch set.
This patch set is intended to improve the performance of sync dentry,
I don't think it is a good idea to change other logic in this patch set.
Patch [7/10] moves the check from exfat_search_empty_slot() to exfat_validate_empty_dentry_set().
- if (hint_femp->eidx != EXFAT_HINT_NONE &&
- hint_femp->count == CNT_UNUSED_HIT) {
- /* unused empty group means
- * an empty group which includes
- * unused dentry
- */
- exfat_fs_error(sb,
- "found bogus dentry(%d) beyond unused empty group(%d) (start_clu : %u, cur_clu : %u)",
- dentry, hint_femp->eidx,
- p_dir->dir, clu.dir);
>
> > + if (unused_hit)
> > + goto out;
> > + } else {
> > + if (unused_hit)
> > + goto out;
> Label "out" does not look like an error situation.
> Let's use "out_err" instead of "out".
Makes sense, I will rename the label to "err_deleted_after_unused".
