Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: don't leave the hashed inode while it's unlinked

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On 08/26, Wenjie Qi wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> Yes, that's true for the normal path.
> 
> What I meant is the rollback case: err is non-zero, but __do_unlink()
> may still return ret == 0. If the preceding f2fs_add_link() has already
> been checkpointed, a crash before the rollback deletion is checkpointed
> could expose the incomplete symlink again. Should we run f2fs_sync_fs()
> for !ret && IS_DIRSYNC(dir), while preserving err?

I get the point, but I feel that we don't really need to guarantee unlink, since
we're going to return an error anyways?

> 
> Regards,
> Wenjie
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel