Re: [PATCH] fs/nfs/inode.c: adjust code alignment

[Myklebust, Trond]

On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:47 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> 
> This patch adjusts the code so that the alignment matches the current
> semantics.  I have no idea if it is the intended semantics, though.  Should
> the call to nfs_setsecurity also be under the else?
> 

>  fs/nfs/inode.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> index af6e806..d8ad685 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ nfs_fhget(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fh
> *fh, struct nfs_fattr *fattr, st
>                 unlock_new_inode(inode);
>         } else
>                 nfs_refresh_inode(inode, fattr);
> -               nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
> +       nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
>         dprintk("NFS: nfs_fhget(%s/%Ld fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d)\n",
>                 inode->i_sb->s_id,
>                 (long long)NFS_FILEID(inode),

Hi Julia,

Thanks for pointing this out! Given that the 'then' clause of the if
statement already calls nfs_setsecurity before unlocking the inode, I
suspect that the above _should_ really be part of the 'else' clause. 

That said, I can't see that calling nfs_setsecurity twice on the inode
can cause any unintended side-effects, so I suggest that we rather queue
the patch up for inclusion in 3.12.
Steve and Dave, any comments?

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
èº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËlzwm…ébëæìr¸›zX§»®w¥Š{ayºÊÚë,j­¢f£¢·hš‹àz¹®w¥¢¸¢·¦j:+v‰¨ŠwèjØm¶Ÿÿ¾«‘êçzZ+ƒùšŽŠÝj"ú!¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^¶m§ÿðÃnÆàþY&—