Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:58:15 -0400 | From | Dave Quigley <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs/nfs/inode.c: adjust code alignment |
| |
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@lip6.fr> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> 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
| |