Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <818b01d845b4$07f97b50$17ec71f0$@samsung.com>
References: <CGME20220325094234epcas1p28605e75eef8d46f614ff11f98e5a6ef8@epcas1p2.samsung.com>
 <HK2PR04MB38911DEEC1C24C06E4C272D5811A9@HK2PR04MB3891.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <818b01d845b4$07f97b50$17ec71f0$@samsung.com>
From:   Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 21:57:48 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd8z3LE+wnQbyzwohOvy3zXwC6q50gZ8rW=ytwMae_4iOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exfat: remove exfat_update_parent_info()
To:     Yuezhang Mo <Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>,
        Andy Wu <Andy.Wu@sony.com>,
        Aoyama Wataru <wataru.aoyama@sony.com>,
        Daniel Palmer <daniel.palmer@sony.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

2022-04-01 19:34 GMT+09:00, Sungjong Seo <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>:
>> 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 <Yuezhang.Mo@sony.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Wu <Andy.Wu@sony.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Aoyama Wataru <wataru.aoyama@sony.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Palmer <daniel.palmer@sony.com>
>
> 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 <sj1557.seo@samsung.com>
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
>
>