From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:04:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/nfs/inode.c: adjust code alignment Message-Id: <52013A9D.4010905@RedHat.com> List-Id: References: <1375714059-29567-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <1375714059-29567-2-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr> <1375714793.7337.12.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> In-Reply-To: <1375714793.7337.12.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Julia Lawall , David Quigley , "kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Hello, On 05/08/13 10:59, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:47 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: >> From: Julia Lawall >> >> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall >> >> --- >> >> 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); This call to nfs_setsecurity() is not needed. The security only needs to be set when the i-node is created... steved. >> 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? >