Re: [git pull] vfs pile 1

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 04:11:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ... and sure enough, ext3 has the same piece of fun.
> 
> Hmm. Do we want to have the s_remove_count games for this "temporarily
> zero nlink" case? Maybe we don't want to do drop_nlink/set_nlink? Does
> it matter?

The thing is, the total result in case of failure should be drop_nlink
with s_remove_count bumped.  We could turn that into
	set i_nlink to 0, without touching s_remove_count
	write the body
	if failed, bump s_remove_count and bugger off
	otherwise set i_nlink to 1, without touching s_remove_count
but that's far more intrusive change than what I posted.

> Anyway, mind sending me a patch with changelog and sign-off?

Sure, will do.  I have several more fixes in my tree right now (including
such gems as double kfree() in devpts on mount failure ;-/), so I'll send
a pull request in a couple of hours anyway.  Would you be OK with having
that patch in the same pile?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/