On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:43:00 +0100 (BST) Hin-Tak Leung <htl10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >+++ a/fs/hfsplus/xattr.c
> >@@ -726,6 +726,7 @@ ssize_t hfsplus_listxattr(struct dentry
> >
> > end_listxattr:
> > ______ kfree(strbuf);
> >+out:
> > ______ hfs_find_exit(&fd);
> > ______ return res;
> > }
> >
> >But obviously the patches you sent were not the patches you tested.
> >What happened here?
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Am terribly sorry - my fault of using/working/testing under one kernel (3.13.9),
> then cherry-picking onto Linus' HEAD and collapsing there. A couple of small
> changes got dropped/messed up. There is the missing headers
> (#include <linux/nls.h>) in xattr*.c you spotted in the other mail; the above
> is meant to be corrected by re-using the label nearby (as kfree(null) is okay...), rather than adding
> a new label.
>
> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/xattr.c b/fs/hfsplus/xattr.c
> index 3ddf50c..2a38647 100644
> --- a/fs/hfsplus/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/xattr.c
> @@ -670,7 +670,7 @@ ssize_t hfsplus_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *buffer, size_t size)
> XATTR_MAC_OSX_PREFIX_LEN + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!strbuf) {
> res = -ENOMEM;
> - goto out;
> + goto end_listxattr;
> }
>
> err = hfsplus_find_attr(inode->i_sb, inode->i_ino, NULL, &fd);
>
> Do you want me to re-submit? I checked the diff of the two branches, it
> is just these two issues.
>
Is OK - what I have now saves 30 cycles on a path which never happens ;)
It would help if you could grab tomorrow's linux-next and retest, to
check that everything landed OK.
How were you testing this anyway? It's a pretty intricate patchset and
presumably some effort went into developing the testcases. Perhaps you
have something which we can immortalize in tools/testing/selftests/?
--
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
