Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 20 Mar 2021 23:59:43 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, yangerkun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ext4: find old entry again if failed to rename
 whiteout
Message-ID: <YFbErxtWpQJ7eTbQ@mit.edu>
References: <20210303131703.330415-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com>
 <YEo6k8kg3zF7avId@mit.edu>
 <a81cf4d6-a934-9031-7e9d-f5a91647d210@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a81cf4d6-a934-9031-7e9d-f5a91647d210@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:01:50AM +0800, zhangyi (F) wrote:
> 
> In this error path of whiteout rename, we want to restore the old inode
> number and old name back to the old entry, it's just a rollback operation.
> The old entry will stay where it was in common cases, but it can be moved
> from the first block to the leaf block during make indexed dir for one
> special case, but it cannot be deleted in theory. So if we cannot find it
> again, there must some bad thing happen and the filesystem may probably
> inconsistency. So I calling ext4_std_error() here，or am I missing something？

After looking at this more closely, I agree, this should be OK.  The
directory is going to be locked, so it shouldn't be changing out from
under us.

Thanks, applied.

					- Ted