On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:14:45AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Tue 11-04-23 09:47:08, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > My apologies it took a while to get back to you on this one, I was
> > accumulating reviews before running through all of them.
>
> Sure, that is fine.
>
> > > > inode = shmem_get_inode(idmap, dir->i_sb, dir, mode, 0, VM_NORESERVE);
> > > > - if (inode) {
> > > > - error = security_inode_init_security(inode, dir,
> > > > - NULL,
> > > > - shmem_initxattrs, NULL);
> > > > - if (error && error != -EOPNOTSUPP)
> > > > - goto out_iput;
> > > > - error = simple_acl_create(dir, inode);
> > > > - if (error)
> > > > - goto out_iput;
> > > > - d_tmpfile(file, inode);
> > > > - }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(inode))
> > > > + return PTR_ERR(inode);
> > >
> > > This doesn't look correct. Previously, we've called
> > > finish_open_simple(file, error), now you just return error... Otherwise the
> > > patch looks good to me.
> >
> > I see what you mean. But, finish_open_simple() simply does:
> >
> > if (error)
> > return error;
> >
> > So, calling it with a non-zero value for error at most will just add another
> > function call into the stack.
>
> I see, I didn't look inside finish_open_simple() :). Well, it is at least
> inline function so actually no function call.
Great, I didn't notice it's an inline function :D
.
.
.
> Yeah, I'd prefer we keep calling finish_open_simple(). Adding a label for
> it is fine by me.
Ok, I'm updating the series today, hopefully I'll send the new version today or
tomorrow.
Thanks for the reviews!
--
Carlos Maiolino
