Re: [PATCH v6 4/7] fat: restructure export_operations

[OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>]

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com> writes:

> +	if (MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb)->options.nfs == FAT_NFS_NOSTALE_RO) {
> +		if (inode->i_ino == MSDOS_ROOT_INO)
> +			stat->ino = MSDOS_ROOT_INO;

Can we simply set i_pos = MSDOS_ROOT_INO in fat_read_root()? If so, I
think we can avoid this check.

> +		else
> +			/* Use i_pos for ino. This is used as fileid of nfs. */
> +			stat->ino = fat_i_pos_read(MSDOS_SB(inode->i_sb),
> +						   inode);
> +	}
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fat_getattr);


> +struct fat_fid {
> +	u32 i_gen;
> +	u32 i_pos_low;
> +	u16 i_pos_hi;
> +	u16 parent_i_pos_hi;
> +	u32 parent_i_pos_low;
> +	u32 parent_i_gen;
> +} __packed;

Do we need to use __packed? Unnecessary __packed can generate slower
code for alignment check on arch has unaligned fault.

> +	if (parent && (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT)) {
> +		*lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITH_PARENT;
> +		return 255;
> +	} else if (len < FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT) {
> +		*lenp = FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT;
> +		return 255;
> +	}

This check strange. "parent && len == FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT" will
overwrite over limit of fh size?
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>