On 8/6/2013 2:04 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
Hello,
On 05/08/13 10:59, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
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);
This call to nfs_setsecurity() is not needed. The security only needs
to be set when the i-node is created...
steved.
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?
I can't see why it would be needed either. I agree with Steve. We can
get rid of it.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
