exfat_update_parent_info() is a workaround for the wrong parent
directory information being used after renaming. Now that bug is
fixed, this is no longer needed, so remove it.
Signed-off-by: Yuezhang Mo <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andy Wu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Aoyama Wataru <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Palmer <[email protected]>
---
fs/exfat/namei.c | 26 --------------------------
1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/exfat/namei.c b/fs/exfat/namei.c
index e7adb6bfd9d5..76acc3721951 100644
--- a/fs/exfat/namei.c
+++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c
@@ -1168,28 +1168,6 @@ static int exfat_move_file(struct inode *inode, struct exfat_chain *p_olddir,
return 0;
}
-static void exfat_update_parent_info(struct exfat_inode_info *ei,
- struct inode *parent_inode)
-{
- struct exfat_sb_info *sbi = EXFAT_SB(parent_inode->i_sb);
- struct exfat_inode_info *parent_ei = EXFAT_I(parent_inode);
- loff_t parent_isize = i_size_read(parent_inode);
-
- /*
- * the problem that struct exfat_inode_info caches wrong parent info.
- *
- * because of flag-mismatch of ei->dir,
- * there is abnormal traversing cluster chain.
- */
- if (unlikely(parent_ei->flags != ei->dir.flags ||
- parent_isize != EXFAT_CLU_TO_B(ei->dir.size, sbi) ||
- parent_ei->start_clu != ei->dir.dir)) {
- exfat_chain_set(&ei->dir, parent_ei->start_clu,
- EXFAT_B_TO_CLU_ROUND_UP(parent_isize, sbi),
- parent_ei->flags);
- }
-}
-
/* rename or move a old file into a new file */
static int __exfat_rename(struct inode *old_parent_inode,
struct exfat_inode_info *ei, struct inode *new_parent_inode,
@@ -1220,8 +1198,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode *old_parent_inode,
return -ENOENT;
}
- exfat_update_parent_info(ei, old_parent_inode);
-
exfat_chain_dup(&olddir, &ei->dir);
dentry = ei->entry;
@@ -1242,8 +1218,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode *old_parent_inode,
goto out;
}
- exfat_update_parent_info(new_ei, new_parent_inode);
-
p_dir = &(new_ei->dir);
new_entry = new_ei->entry;
ep = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, new_entry, &new_bh);
--
2.25.1
2022-04-01 19:34 GMT+09:00, Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>:
>> exfat_update_parent_info() is a workaround for the wrong parent directory
>> information being used after renaming. Now that bug is fixed, this is no
>> longer needed, so remove it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yuezhang Mo <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Wu <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Aoyama Wataru <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Palmer <[email protected]>
>
> As you said, exfat_update_parent_info() seems to be a workaround
> that exists from the legacy code to resolve the inconsistency of
> parent node information.
>
> Thanks for your patch!
> Reviewed-by: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>
Hi Yuezhang,
I don't think there's any reason to split this patch from patch 1/2.
Any thought to combine them to the one ?
Thanks.
>
>> ---
>> fs/exfat/namei.c | 26 --------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/exfat/namei.c b/fs/exfat/namei.c index
>> e7adb6bfd9d5..76acc3721951 100644
>> --- a/fs/exfat/namei.c
>> +++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c
>> @@ -1168,28 +1168,6 @@ static int exfat_move_file(struct inode *inode,
>> struct exfat_chain *p_olddir,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void exfat_update_parent_info(struct exfat_inode_info *ei,
>> - struct inode *parent_inode)
>> -{
>> - struct exfat_sb_info *sbi = EXFAT_SB(parent_inode->i_sb);
>> - struct exfat_inode_info *parent_ei = EXFAT_I(parent_inode);
>> - loff_t parent_isize = i_size_read(parent_inode);
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * the problem that struct exfat_inode_info caches wrong parent
>> info.
>> - *
>> - * because of flag-mismatch of ei->dir,
>> - * there is abnormal traversing cluster chain.
>> - */
>> - if (unlikely(parent_ei->flags != ei->dir.flags ||
>> - parent_isize != EXFAT_CLU_TO_B(ei->dir.size, sbi) ||
>> - parent_ei->start_clu != ei->dir.dir)) {
>> - exfat_chain_set(&ei->dir, parent_ei->start_clu,
>> - EXFAT_B_TO_CLU_ROUND_UP(parent_isize, sbi),
>> - parent_ei->flags);
>> - }
>> -}
>> -
>> /* rename or move a old file into a new file */ static int
>> __exfat_rename(struct inode *old_parent_inode,
>> struct exfat_inode_info *ei, struct inode *new_parent_inode,
>> @@ -1220,8 +1198,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode
>> *old_parent_inode,
>> return -ENOENT;
>> }
>>
>> - exfat_update_parent_info(ei, old_parent_inode);
>> -
>> exfat_chain_dup(&olddir, &ei->dir);
>> dentry = ei->entry;
>>
>> @@ -1242,8 +1218,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode
>> *old_parent_inode,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - exfat_update_parent_info(new_ei, new_parent_inode);
>> -
>> p_dir = &(new_ei->dir);
>> new_entry = new_ei->entry;
>> ep = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, new_entry, &new_bh);
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>
>
> exfat_update_parent_info() is a workaround for the wrong parent directory
> information being used after renaming. Now that bug is fixed, this is no
> longer needed, so remove it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuezhang Mo <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Wu <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Aoyama Wataru <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Palmer <[email protected]>
As you said, exfat_update_parent_info() seems to be a workaround
that exists from the legacy code to resolve the inconsistency of
parent node information.
Thanks for your patch!
Reviewed-by: Sungjong Seo <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/exfat/namei.c | 26 --------------------------
> 1 file changed, 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exfat/namei.c b/fs/exfat/namei.c index
> e7adb6bfd9d5..76acc3721951 100644
> --- a/fs/exfat/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/exfat/namei.c
> @@ -1168,28 +1168,6 @@ static int exfat_move_file(struct inode *inode,
> struct exfat_chain *p_olddir,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void exfat_update_parent_info(struct exfat_inode_info *ei,
> - struct inode *parent_inode)
> -{
> - struct exfat_sb_info *sbi = EXFAT_SB(parent_inode->i_sb);
> - struct exfat_inode_info *parent_ei = EXFAT_I(parent_inode);
> - loff_t parent_isize = i_size_read(parent_inode);
> -
> - /*
> - * the problem that struct exfat_inode_info caches wrong parent
> info.
> - *
> - * because of flag-mismatch of ei->dir,
> - * there is abnormal traversing cluster chain.
> - */
> - if (unlikely(parent_ei->flags != ei->dir.flags ||
> - parent_isize != EXFAT_CLU_TO_B(ei->dir.size, sbi) ||
> - parent_ei->start_clu != ei->dir.dir)) {
> - exfat_chain_set(&ei->dir, parent_ei->start_clu,
> - EXFAT_B_TO_CLU_ROUND_UP(parent_isize, sbi),
> - parent_ei->flags);
> - }
> -}
> -
> /* rename or move a old file into a new file */ static int
> __exfat_rename(struct inode *old_parent_inode,
> struct exfat_inode_info *ei, struct inode *new_parent_inode,
> @@ -1220,8 +1198,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode
> *old_parent_inode,
> return -ENOENT;
> }
>
> - exfat_update_parent_info(ei, old_parent_inode);
> -
> exfat_chain_dup(&olddir, &ei->dir);
> dentry = ei->entry;
>
> @@ -1242,8 +1218,6 @@ static int __exfat_rename(struct inode
> *old_parent_inode,
> goto out;
> }
>
> - exfat_update_parent_info(new_ei, new_parent_inode);
> -
> p_dir = &(new_ei->dir);
> new_entry = new_ei->entry;
> ep = exfat_get_dentry(sb, p_dir, new_entry, &new_bh);
> --
> 2.25.1
Dear Namjae,
> I don't think there's any reason to split this patch from patch 1/2.
> Any thought to combine them to the one ?
The purpose of splitting this patch from patch 1/2 is to highlight the fix point for easier review.
If you think it is not necessary, it is OK to squash them to one.
Best Regards,
Yuezhang Mo