On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It feels like it might make sense to handle that in caller, but...
> that goes only for cases when we are *NOT* going to continue after
> successful transition to non-lazy mode. And these two are not of
> that sort - we do want to continue rather than restart everything
> from scratch.
Ahh. Yes. I didn't notice that they actually don't return an error at
all if the unlazy_walk succeeds, but just continue.
Ok, so they really are very different.
> BTW, unlazy_walk() has too many arguments, all for the sake of one caller
> (everything except lookup_fast() calls it with (nd, NULL, 0) as arguments)
> and it might make sense to split the damn thing in two. I have that in
> a pending pile since the last cycle, but back then you have asked to stop
> piling them up and let it settle, so I'd postponed that one along with other
> cleanups...
Well, I'd not be against continuing cleanups for 4.3... Well, as long
as we can make sure 4.2 is solid first, of course. I'd still like to
have Hugh verify that the current -git tree works for his load, but
obviously that wasn't easily reproducible, so that will presumably
take a few days. Dominique seems to at least not see it any more with
that patch.
Linus
--
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
