On 21.4.2022 4.57, xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
on 2022/4/21 1:43, Kari Argillander wrote:
I do not understand why this RFC and not a patch.
I don't sure whether this small nit is a problem and can be accepted by
nfs3 group. So When generate a patch, I add RFC subject for it.
RFC means request for comments. Usually this means that patch needs more
work but I would like to discuss this topic before I continue this work.
This was small nit and is no problem, but I just wanted to point that
out.
Argillander
On 20.4.2022 11.48, Yang Xu wrote:
Like ext4 and other use ${fs}_init_acl filesystem, they all used the
following
style
error = posix_acl_create(dir, &inode->i_mode, &default_acl, &acl);
if (error)
return error;
if (default_acl) {
error = __ext4_set_acl(handle, inode, ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT,
default_acl, XATTR_CREATE);
posix_acl_release(default_acl);
} else {
inode->i_default_acl = NULL;
}
if (acl) {
if (!error)
error = __ext4_set_acl(handle, inode, ACL_TYPE_ACCESS,
acl, XATTR_CREATE);
posix_acl_release(acl);
} else {
inode->i_acl = NULL;
}
...
So for the readability and unity of the code, adjust this order.
Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Kari Argillander <kari.argillander@xxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ntfs3/xattr.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ntfs3/xattr.c b/fs/ntfs3/xattr.c
index afd0ddad826f..64cefa869a61 100644
--- a/fs/ntfs3/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ntfs3/xattr.c
@@ -642,13 +642,13 @@ int ntfs_init_acl(struct user_namespace
*mnt_userns, struct inode *inode,
inode->i_default_acl = NULL;
}
- if (!acl)
- inode->i_acl = NULL;
- else {
+ if (acl) {
if (!err)
err = ntfs_set_acl_ex(mnt_userns, inode, acl,
ACL_TYPE_ACCESS);
posix_acl_release(acl);
+ } else {
+ inode->i_acl = NULL;
}
return err;
