On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 04:11:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... and sure enough, ext3 has the same piece of fun. > > Hmm. Do we want to have the s_remove_count games for this "temporarily > zero nlink" case? Maybe we don't want to do drop_nlink/set_nlink? Does > it matter? The thing is, the total result in case of failure should be drop_nlink with s_remove_count bumped. We could turn that into set i_nlink to 0, without touching s_remove_count write the body if failed, bump s_remove_count and bugger off otherwise set i_nlink to 1, without touching s_remove_count but that's far more intrusive change than what I posted. > Anyway, mind sending me a patch with changelog and sign-off? Sure, will do. I have several more fixes in my tree right now (including such gems as double kfree() in devpts on mount failure ;-/), so I'll send a pull request in a couple of hours anyway. Would you be OK with having that patch in the same pile? -- 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
