From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: [RESEND/PATCH] ext[234]: Return -EIO not -ESTALE on directory traversal missing inode Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:39:12 -0500 Message-ID: <20090215053912.GD10706@mini-me.lan> References: <1234588099-8445-1-git-send-email-bdonlan@fushizen.net> <1234588688-9497-1-git-send-email-bdonlan@gmail.com> <20090214141411.GD26628@mini-me.lan> <3e8340490902142053x18ae3c20q7018e0d8bc42636d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sct@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, adilger@sun.com To: Bryan Donlan Return-path: Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:34994 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbZBOFj6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:39:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e8340490902142053x18ae3c20q7018e0d8bc42636d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:53:48PM -0500, Bryan Donlan wrote: > > I'm dubious about unlikely() here; OTOH, penalizing the error case > > seems reasonable. > > I can leave it without the unlikely(), as it was before, but as far as > I can tell, this should never happen under a non-corrupted, non-broken > hardware filesystem, so it seems like a reasonable annotation to me. You're right. I was looking at the wrong place in the source, and thought this could happen if the lookup failed; but yes, you're right, this case can only happen if the filesystem is corrupted or there is an I/O error. - Ted