On 08/09/2015 05:43 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 30.07.2015 um 07:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:Initialize quota and alloc a inode quota information in ubifs_new_inode(). Then quota would be aware of a new inode is allocated. Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/ubifs/dir.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index 8d93427..5bfce44 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ */ #include "ubifs.h" +#include <linux/quotaops.h> /** * inherit_flags - inherit flags of the parent inode. @@ -90,12 +91,13 @@ struct inode *ubifs_new_inode(struct ubifs_info *c, const struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_inode *ui; + int err = 0; inode = new_inode(c->vfs_sb); - ui = ubifs_inode(inode); if (!inode) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + ui = ubifs_inode(inode);Seems like an unrelated change. All ubifs_inode() does is a container_of(), inode = NULL won't hurt.
My bad, I planed to split this patch, but forgot it. Yes, as you said, inode = NULL won't hurt, but I think checking inode following new_inode() directly before using it seems more reasonable. Although it's obvious that's okey to experts like you, I believe this change could make the logic more "correct" to others. :) It's a trivial fix from my opinion, do you think that's worthy? Yang
Thanks, //richard .
-- 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
