Received: by 2002:a25:ab43:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id u61csp1249125ybi; Fri, 24 May 2019 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyAvaV6cLdUcpoGwKf945RpnkkSIY3Hb4cymtpYGt2zcPKZ8Gv6Khz4LyV3jYq4Y7hpEWVR X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:e38b:: with SMTP id b11mr13940333pjz.117.1558756783193; Fri, 24 May 2019 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558756783; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oILm0JBG/EixTsA4R7uQeHhJnnGNba40nMj0se6BGewyu7Ta0ueW4WtO+wO2EBhGO4 bmb4p9V6c8xrI1zaEZ/+G4w3lV/EzRIs/V8AEr6VVKI7xrnZhJ5tTcCrey6/doU9f5Dx /Ukt2HNUtpygLvKVITtXdr8nBAtpdKszlMuxWSrCFTUDAiEw+H1ahvr/wYAYIMnUnnxJ AZRwljO8kLd99KG1SEvAWVtnBPyvhGfh+7z+rACui/GP6ZyewNgU0WaafyNgaTGvk3NJ uR9xNM1ti/uUPo2SlpD01OnCxyaS9DRcIj9ZUraP6rROYzmnOnkfnfvMhGPEMqALz6GK ppFQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=P/PuircqLygkGkSoOgyfb3ZKjU2eu9cCah1Hm1ieuo0=; b=QBDpGdi7zCSKk6KoCJWuRW4Mdd4uTqjWCYJPXmWKdrcBes2kGuD1JlmbcZdmYIaJuS aKgg8Ef/iSsKymImkAEbd8S8w2EgP3dWq/VIo+K+Ph6CbN7uaI3vk3HJNByqDcjVdF/9 L4v8PB7XVCbvIJjJDPmZ98rs6ayWlMmN9+ajt7FbXDrEXnp0szcl3zc5tzwJKjpRZfVs S0ew9LTjsG9mLvQ7Oc0cqQswiqYD//Xt9SSLbGXqFQe9BNqSDDa4bDnr+DXB4Q6/6Ym/ 67KsDWMTfH13xrrIkugFTCq6tDsQ4BpDBgMy3Tq4jImFQmfbYPFpDSzj0nl9hc00l8gd 6TBw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i3si6688529pgq.440.2019.05.24.20.59.19; Fri, 24 May 2019 20:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726822AbfEYD6z (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 24 May 2019 23:58:55 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:57826 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726755AbfEYD6z (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2019 23:58:55 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org ([66.31.38.53]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x4P3wm7q031642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 May 2019 23:58:48 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id E17B2420481; Fri, 24 May 2019 23:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 23:58:47 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix dcache lookup of !casefolded directories Message-ID: <20190525035847.GC4225@mit.edu> References: <20190524224129.28525-1-krisman@collabora.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190524224129.28525-1-krisman@collabora.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 06:41:29PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > Found by visual inspection, this wasn't caught by my xfstest, since it's > effect is ignoring positive dentries in the cache the fallback just goes > to the disk. it was introduced in the last iteration of the > case-insensitive patch. > > d_compare should return 0 when the entries match, so make sure we are > correctly comparing the entire string if the encoding feature is set and > we are on a case-INsensitive directory. > > Fixes: b886ee3e778e ("ext4: Support case-insensitive file name lookups") > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Applied, thanks. I'll note that half the implementations of *_d_compare seem to use !!memcmp(), and half use memcmp(). The callers of d_compare only seems to care if it's 0 or != 0, so I guess it doesn't matter... - Ted