From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (unknown [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E372FC433C1 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 04:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD38619AF for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2021 04:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229863AbhCUEAK (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:00:10 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:34366 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229840AbhCUEAF (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Mar 2021 00:00:05 -0400 Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-72-74-133-215.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.74.133.215]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 12L3xh4l022579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 20 Mar 2021 23:59:44 -0400 Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 4975815C39CA; Sat, 20 Mar 2021 23:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 23:59:43 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: "zhangyi (F)" Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, yangerkun@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ext4: find old entry again if failed to rename whiteout Message-ID: References: <20210303131703.330415-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:01:50AM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote: > > In this error path of whiteout rename, we want to restore the old inode > number and old name back to the old entry, it's just a rollback operation. > The old entry will stay where it was in common cases, but it can be moved > from the first block to the leaf block during make indexed dir for one > special case, but it cannot be deleted in theory. So if we cannot find it > again, there must some bad thing happen and the filesystem may probably > inconsistency. So I calling ext4_std_error() here，or am I missing something？ After looking at this more closely, I agree, this should be OK. The directory is going to be locked, so it shouldn't be changing out from under us. Thanks, applied. - Ted