On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:31:25 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 09:09:52AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:12:33 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > We'll need the same logic for rename and link.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/namei.c | 13 +++----------
> > > include/linux/fs.h | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > > index cba3db1..a9d4031 100644
> > > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > > @@ -3401,14 +3401,9 @@ int vfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, struct inode **delegate
> > > else {
> > > error = security_inode_unlink(dir, dentry);
> > > if (!error) {
> > > - error = break_deleg(target, O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK);
> > > - if (error) {
> > > - if (error == -EWOULDBLOCK && delegated_inode) {
> > > - *delegated_inode = target;
> > > - ihold(target);
> > > - }
> > > + error = try_break_deleg(target, delegated_inode);
> > > + if (error)
> > > goto out;
> > > - }
> > > error = dir->i_op->unlink(dir, dentry);
> > > if (!error)
> > > dont_mount(dentry);
> > > @@ -3478,9 +3473,7 @@ exit2:
> > > iput(inode); /* truncate the inode here */
> > > inode = NULL;
> > > if (delegated_inode) {
> > > - error = break_deleg(delegated_inode, O_WRONLY);
> > > - iput(delegated_inode);
> > > - delegated_inode = NULL;
> > > + error = break_deleg_wait(&delegated_inode);
> > > if (!error)
> > > goto retry_deleg;
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > index f951588..c37e463 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > @@ -1894,6 +1894,9 @@ extern bool our_mnt(struct vfsmount *mnt);
> > >
> > > extern int current_umask(void);
> > >
> > > +extern void ihold(struct inode * inode);
> > > +extern void iput(struct inode *);
> > > +
> > > /* /sys/fs */
> > > extern struct kobject *fs_kobj;
> > >
> > > @@ -1962,6 +1965,28 @@ static inline int break_deleg(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline int try_break_deleg(struct inode *inode, struct inode **delegated_inode)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = break_deleg(inode, O_WRONLY|O_NONBLOCK);
> > > + if (ret == -EWOULDBLOCK && delegated_inode) {
> > > + *delegated_inode = inode;
> > > + ihold(inode);
> > > + }
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int break_deleg_wait(struct inode **delegated_inode)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = break_deleg(*delegated_inode, O_WRONLY);
> > > + iput(*delegated_inode);
> > > + *delegated_inode = NULL;
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #else /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
> > > static inline int locks_mandatory_locked(struct inode *inode)
> > > {
> > > @@ -2005,6 +2030,12 @@ static inline int break_deleg(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
> > > {
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +static inline int try_break_deleg(struct inode *inode, struct delegated_inode **inode)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
> > >
> > > /* fs/open.c */
> > > @@ -2335,8 +2366,6 @@ extern loff_t vfs_llseek(struct file *file, loff_t offset, int whence);
> > > extern int inode_init_always(struct super_block *, struct inode *);
> > > extern void inode_init_once(struct inode *);
> > > extern void address_space_init_once(struct address_space *mapping);
> > > -extern void ihold(struct inode * inode);
> > > -extern void iput(struct inode *);
> > > extern struct inode * igrab(struct inode *);
> > > extern ino_t iunique(struct super_block *, ino_t);
> > > extern int inode_needs_sync(struct inode *inode);
> >
> > Nice cleanup. Might be reasonable to reorder or merge this patch with
> > the previous one to reduce "churn" in vfs_unlink.
>
> That's how I first did it then I thought "eh, there's a way I could make
> this patch a little smaller...". Seemed like it might be a tad easier
> to review this way. Up to you.
>
Reordering it would still keep it granular. Maybe introduce the helpers
first and then add patches that make the callers use them?
But that's just me being picky -- the patches look reasonable either
way...
--
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
