Re: [PATCH v2] ext[234]: Return -EIO not -ESTALE on directory traversal through deleted inode

[Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:53:39PM -0500, Bryan Donlan wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Bryan Donlan <bdonlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +               if (unlikely(IS_ERR(inode))) {
>> > +                       if (PTR_ERR(inode) == -ESTALE) {
>> > +                               ext3_error(dir->i_sb, "ext2_lookup",
>> > +                                               "deleted inode referenced: %lu",
>> > +                                               ino);
>> > +                               return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
>> > +                       } else {
>> > +                               return ERR_CAST(inode);
>> > +                       }
>> > +               }
>>
>> I just noticed that I forgot to edit the function name in the
>> ext3_error and ext4_error invocations... Would it be better to send a
>> delta to fix this or resubmit the whole thing?
>
> It's already been pulled into akpm's tree as separate patches.  I'll
> fix up the ext4 one by hand; probably better for you to send
> replacement patches for ext3 separately to akpm and ask him to replace.
>
> I'd suggest using __FUNC__ instead of hard-coding the function name, BTW...

akpm's already fixed up his copies. Sorry for the inconvenience there
- I made sure to get the printf format specifiers right but on the
other hand completely missed the comparatively obvious function name
:)

Thanks,

Bryan Donlan