On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:26:21 -0700, "Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV)" <jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > NULL fid should be handled in cases where we endup calling v9fs_dir_release() > before even we instantiate the fid in filp. > > Signed-off-by: Venkateswararao Jujjuri <jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/9p/vfs_dir.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/9p/vfs_dir.c b/fs/9p/vfs_dir.c > index 16c8a2a..899f168 100644 > --- a/fs/9p/vfs_dir.c > +++ b/fs/9p/vfs_dir.c > @@ -292,9 +292,11 @@ int v9fs_dir_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) > > fid = filp->private_data; > P9_DPRINTK(P9_DEBUG_VFS, > - "inode: %p filp: %p fid: %d\n", inode, filp, fid->fid); > + "v9fs_dir_release: inode: %p filp: %p fid: %d\n", > + inode, filp, fid ? fid->fid : -1); > filemap_write_and_wait(inode->i_mapping); > - p9_client_clunk(fid); > + if (fid) > + p9_client_clunk(fid); > return 0; > } > Can you get a stack trace where we end up calling dir_release with null fid -aneesh -- 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
