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. We don't need vfsmount_lock for d_unlinked(), do we? Then, I think we can do + if (deleted) + *deleted = d_unlinked(dentry); spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); - prepend(&end, &buflen, "\0", 1); + prepend(&end, &buflen, "", 1); - if (d_unlinked(dentry) && - (prepend(&end, &buflen, " (deleted)", 10) != 0)) - goto Elong; -- 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
