Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750885AbWA0GiH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:38:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751009AbWA0GiH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:38:07 -0500 Received: from dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.40.174]:11194 "EHLO aria.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750885AbWA0GiG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:38:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:38:04 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Heiko Carstens Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] debugfs: hard link count wrong Message-ID: <20060127063804.GA4680@suse.de> References: <20060126141142.GA11599@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20060127032513.GA12559@suse.de> <20060127055607.GA9331@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060127055607.GA9331@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1652 Lines: 46 On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:56:07AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > There seems to be a bug in debugfs: it seems it doesn't get the hard link > > > count right. See the output below. This happened on s390x with git tree > > > of today. Any ideas? > > What code were you using that called debugfs? Is it in the mainline > > tree? > > It's the s390 debug feature in arch/s390/kernel/debug.c. It's completely in > the mainline tree. > > > $ cd /sys/kernel/debug/ > > $ find . > > . > > ./uhci > > [...] > > $ stat . > > File: `.' > > Size: 0 Blocks: 0 IO Block: 4096 directory > > Device: eh/14d Inode: 15528 Links: 2 > > Links should be 3, I thought? For an empty directory it's 2 and as soon as > you create a new directory in there it should be increased by 1. Therefore > it should be 3. Or am I missing something? Yeah, I think you are correct. But I don't see where in the debugfs code I messed this up... In debugfs_mkdir() we increment the parent i_nlink properly if we create the new subdirectory, and based on other implementations like this (usbfs), that logic seems to be correct. Unless something is odd with creating a directory in the root of the fs. Does the subdirectory you have created have the proper number of links? > Btw.: my find version: "GNU find version 4.2.20". Hm, newer versions of find don't complain about this? thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/