Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:06:21 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] devtmpfs: Calling delete_path() only when necessary | From | Axel Lin <> |
| |
2013/12/9 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:54:29PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote: >> 2013/12/9 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>: >> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:44:14PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote: >> >> 2013/12/4 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>: >> >> > On 11/16/2013 02:15:23 AM, Axel Lin wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The deleted variable is always 1 in current code. >> >> >> Initialize deleted variable to be 0, so delete_path() will be called only >> >> >> when >> >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I'm not seeing this in linux-next, or a reply on the web archive. Assuming >> >> > nobody's objected to this, you might want to forward it to >> >> > trivial@kernel.org. >> >> > >> >> > That said, you could describe what it _does_ a little more? >> >> >> >> I was expecting Greg to pick up this patch. >> >> >> >> I thought the description is pretty clear. >> >> What the patch does is changing the init value of deleted variable to 0. >> >> The intention of this change is to avoid unnecessary delete_path() call. >> > >> > I agree the logic is a bit odd here, but are you seeing an "unnecessary" >> > delete_path() call happening? The code has always been like this from >> > what I can tell... >> >> Honestly, I havn't see the "unnecessary" delete_path() call happening druing my >> test. I look at the code when I was debugging a hangup issue. >> (In the end, I think the issue is not related to the devtmpfs code.) >> But I found the logic for the deleted variable looks odd. >> There are below possible (unlikely) case: >> When strchr(nodename, '/') != 0 and >> 1. If dentry->d_inode is NULL >> 2. vfs_getattr returns error >> 3. vfs_unlink returns error except -ENOENT. >> >> In these cases, delete_path() will fail anyway. >> >> Although this is a unlikely case, and I know the code is there since initial >> commit. But I think it's still good to fix it. > > Have you tested your patch to verify nothing breaks? Yes. I have this patch in my local build image since the day I sent the patch. Regards, Axel
|  |