Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> +{
>> + struct sysfs_rename_struct *srs;
>> + struct super_block *sb;
>> + struct dentry *dentry;
>> + int error;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &sysfs_fs_type.fs_supers, s_instances) {
>> + dentry = sysfs_get_dentry(sb, sd);
>> + if (!dentry)
>> + continue;
>
> sysfs_get_dentry() return ERR_PTR() value. Oops, sysfs_get_dentry()
> implementation is wrong too. Also, please move
> sysfs_grab/release_supers() near this patch and add (a lot of)
> comments there.
>
> Other than that, I think this is as clean as this can be. Great.
Welcome. I will see what I can do with respect to cleaning up
the names.
As for the return value of sysfs_get_dentry that is tricky. In particular
I have three specific cases the code needs to deal with.
- We got the dentry.
- We did not get the dentry because for this super block there never
ever will be a dentry.
- Some kind of error occurred in attempting to get the dentry.
Not getting a dentry because it is impossible I am currently handling
with a NULL return. I can equally use a specific error code to mean
that as well. It doesn't much matter. So I guess the hunk in
question could read:
>> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &sysfs_fs_type.fs_supers, s_instances) {
>> + dentry = sysfs_get_dentry(sb, sd);
>> + if (dentry == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT))
>> + continue;
As long as we handle that class of error differently I really don't
care.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
