[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4790E295.6010301@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:32:05 -0500
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] enhanced ESTALE error handling
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:45:52AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
>
>> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:36:01AM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>
> I usually try to gather any coding style, comment grammar, etc., fixes
> into a single patch or two at the beginning of a series. That keeps the
> substantive patches (the hardest to understand) shorter.
>
>
That's probably great advice. I can easily enough undo the change
since it does not affect the functionality of the patch. It was
made while I was doing the analysis for the patch and to make the
style better match the style used in other surrounding routines.
Thanx...
ps
> --b.
>
>
>>>> @@ -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
>> -
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists