lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] enhanced ESTALE error handling
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:36:01AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
>
>> @@ -1025,12 +1027,27 @@ static int fastcall link_path_walk(const
>> mntget(save.mnt);
>>
>> result = __link_path_walk(name, nd);
>> - if (result == -ESTALE) {
>> + while (result == -ESTALE) {
>> + /*
>> + * If no progress was made looking up the pathname,
>> + * then stop and return ENOENT instead of ESTALE.
>> + */
>> + if (nd->dentry == save.dentry) {
>> + result = -ENOENT;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> *nd = save;
>> dget(nd->dentry);
>> mntget(nd->mnt);
>> nd->flags |= LOOKUP_REVAL;
>> result = __link_path_walk(name, nd);
>> + /*
>> + * If no progress was made this time, then return
>> + * ENOENT instead of ESTALE because no recovery
>> + * is possible to recover the stale file handle.
>> + */
>> + if (result == -ESTALE && nd->dentry == save.dentry)
>> + result = -ENOENT;
>> }
>>
>> dput(save.dentry);
>>
>
> Why do you need both of these tests? The first one should be enough,
> surely?
>
>

Yes, good point.

>> @@ -1268,8 +1285,8 @@ int path_lookup_open(int dfd, const char
>> * @create_mode: create intent flags
>> */
>> static int path_lookup_create(int dfd, const char *name,
>> - unsigned int lookup_flags, struct nameidata *nd,
>> - int open_flags, int create_mode)
>> + unsigned int lookup_flags, struct nameidata *nd,
>> + int open_flags, int create_mode)
>>
>
> Gratuitous reformatting?
>
>

Elimination of an overly long line?

>> @@ -1712,7 +1729,10 @@ int open_namei(int dfd, const char *path
>> int acc_mode, error;
>> struct path path;
>> struct dentry *dir;
>> - int count = 0;
>> + int count;
>> +
>> +top:
>> + count = 0;
>>
>> acc_mode = ACC_MODE(flag);
>>
>> @@ -1739,7 +1759,8 @@ int open_namei(int dfd, const char *path
>> /*
>> * Create - we need to know the parent.
>> */
>> - error = path_lookup_create(dfd,pathname,LOOKUP_PARENT,nd,flag,mode);
>> + error = path_lookup_create(dfd, pathname, LOOKUP_PARENT, nd,
>> + flag, mode);
>> if (error)
>> return error;
>>
>> @@ -1812,10 +1833,17 @@ ok:
>> return 0;
>>
>> exit_dput:
>> + if (error == -ESTALE)
>> + d_drop(path.dentry);
>> dput_path(&path, nd);
>> exit:
>> if (!IS_ERR(nd->intent.open.file))
>> release_open_intent(nd);
>> + if (error == -ESTALE) {
>> + d_drop(nd->dentry);
>> + path_release(nd);
>> + goto top;
>> + }
>>
>
> I wonder if a tail-call might not work better here.

"Tail-call"?

Thanx...

ps


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-18 17:49    [W:0.100 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site