On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:47 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> This patch adjusts the code so that the alignment matches the current
> semantics. I have no idea if it is the intended semantics, though. Should
> the call to nfs_setsecurity also be under the else?
>
> fs/nfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> index af6e806..d8ad685 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ nfs_fhget(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fh
> *fh, struct nfs_fattr *fattr, st
> unlock_new_inode(inode);
> } else
> nfs_refresh_inode(inode, fattr);
> - nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
> + nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
> dprintk("NFS: nfs_fhget(%s/%Ld fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d)\n",
> inode->i_sb->s_id,
> (long long)NFS_FILEID(inode),
Hi Julia,
Thanks for pointing this out! Given that the 'then' clause of the if
statement already calls nfs_setsecurity before unlocking the inode, I
suspect that the above _should_ really be part of the 'else' clause.
That said, I can't see that calling nfs_setsecurity twice on the inode
can cause any unintended side-effects, so I suggest that we rather queue
the patch up for inclusion in 3.12.
Steve and Dave, any comments?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
