On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > Why would they want to do it (which means taking locks again and > potential incoherence)? > The information is right there, ship it upwards: > > + if (deleted) > + *deleted = 0; > spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); > prepend(&end, &buflen, "\0", 1); > - if (d_unlinked(dentry) && > - (prepend(&end, &buflen, " (deleted)", 10) != 0)) > - goto Elong; > + if (d_unlinked(dentry) && deleted) > + *deleted = 1; > > "(deleted)" as interface sucks, we can't change it, > at least, let's make in-kernel interface correct. > Do you have any specific caller in mind? The above will just result in extra code in most callers. Better have one function with does the old "(deleted)" thing, and one which doesn't. Thanks, Miklos -- 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
