Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:03:30 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, david@fromorbit.com, djwong@kernel.org,
        jlayton@kernel.org, ntfs3@lists.linux.dev, chao@kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] ntfs3: Use the same order for acl pointer check
 in ntfs_init_acl
Message-ID: <20220419140330.jogjwtdzy735j567@wittgenstein>
References: <1650368834-2420-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
 <1650368834-2420-6-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1650368834-2420-6-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 07:47:12PM +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> Like ext4 and other use ${fs}_init_acl filesystem, they all used the following
> style
> 
>        error = posix_acl_create(dir, &inode->i_mode, &default_acl, &acl);
>        if (error)
>                 return error;
> 
>         if (default_acl) {
>                 error = __ext4_set_acl(handle, inode, ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT,
>                                        default_acl, XATTR_CREATE);
>                 posix_acl_release(default_acl);
>         } else {
>                 inode->i_default_acl = NULL;
>         }
>         if (acl) {
>                 if (!error)
>                         error = __ext4_set_acl(handle, inode, ACL_TYPE_ACCESS,
>                                                acl, XATTR_CREATE);
>                 posix_acl_release(acl);
>         } else {
>                 inode->i_acl = NULL;
>         }
> 	...
> 
> So for the readability and unity of the code, adjust this order.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> ---

Again, this patch is irrelevant to the main drive of this patch series
and it's sensitive enough as it is. Just drop it from this series and
upstream it separately to the relevant filesystem imho.