From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC10E7F50 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:48:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5B9AC002 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id dXJdtIT8YbAhx6lc (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:48:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:48:22 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: Ensure we have target_ip for RENAME_EXCHANGE Message-ID: <20150223204822.GA13522@infradead.org> References: <54EB782F.8020201@redhat.com> <54EB787F.5090600@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54EB787F.5090600@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Carlos Maiolino , xfs-oss Seems a little pointless, but given that we overload these different operations over ->rename making Coverity happy might not be the worst idea. Maybe we should just add a different ->rename_exchange methods given that there's not much shared code anywhere. Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs