On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 02:58:01PM +0300, Andrey Utkin wrote: >> There was a check for result being not NULL. But get_acl() may return >> NULL, or ERR_PTR, or actual pointer. >> The purpose of the function where current change is done is to "list >> ACLs only when they are available", so any error condition of get_acl() >> mustn't be elevated, and returning 0 there is still valid. >> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81111 >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Utkin <andrey.krieger.utkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Looks good, thanks! > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > should probably get a cc to stable as the original patch has one > as well. Why are we not passing the error code back to the caller here in the case where we have one? One of the main purposes of returning an error in get_acl() is to ensure that we pass -EOPNOTSUPP if the operation fails due to lack of server support. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
