On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:46:15 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:08:36AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:30:51 +0100 > > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 02:25:14PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > cifs_lookup doesn't actually return a dentry. It instantiates the one > > > > that's passed in, but callers don't have any way to know if the lookup > > > > succeeded. > > > > > > Huh? Of course they do - ->lookup() has every right to do just that; > > > d_add() and return NULL is perfectly legitimate. > > > > OK, bad description on my part... Is one way of doing this preferred > > over another? > > Non-NULL, non ERR_PTR() strongly implies that you have found a different > dentry and tell the caller to use it instead; returning the argument (after > having cached it and bumped its refcount) will work, but it's pretty much > a deliberate obfuscation. Ok, thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'll plan to drop this patch as the existing behavior is more clear. Cheers, -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
