Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:35:02 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ext[234]: Return -EIO not -ESTALE on directory traversal through deleted inode | From | Bryan Donlan <> |
| |
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:53:39PM -0500, Bryan Donlan wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > + if (unlikely(IS_ERR(inode))) { >> > + if (PTR_ERR(inode) == -ESTALE) { >> > + ext3_error(dir->i_sb, "ext2_lookup", >> > + "deleted inode referenced: %lu", >> > + ino); >> > + return ERR_PTR(-EIO); >> > + } else { >> > + return ERR_CAST(inode); >> > + } >> > + } >> >> I just noticed that I forgot to edit the function name in the >> ext3_error and ext4_error invocations... Would it be better to send a >> delta to fix this or resubmit the whole thing? > > It's already been pulled into akpm's tree as separate patches. I'll > fix up the ext4 one by hand; probably better for you to send > replacement patches for ext3 separately to akpm and ask him to replace. > > I'd suggest using __FUNC__ instead of hard-coding the function name, BTW...
akpm's already fixed up his copies. Sorry for the inconvenience there - I made sure to get the printf format specifiers right but on the other hand completely missed the comparatively obvious function name :)
Thanks,
Bryan Donlan
| |