From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2180C10DCE for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 01:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4BD206FA for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 01:00:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727711AbgCNBAz (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:00:55 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:51198 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726637AbgCNBAz (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 21:00:55 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jCvAV-00B8Rf-AJ; Sat, 14 Mar 2020 01:00:47 +0000 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2020 01:00:47 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 12/69] teach handle_mounts() to handle RCU mode Message-ID: <20200314010047.GQ23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20200313235303.GP23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200313235357.2646756-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200313235357.2646756-12-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 05:28:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Oh, and here you accidentally fix the problem I pointed out about > patch 11, as you move the code: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:54 PM Al Viro wrote: > > > > + if (unlikely(!*inode)) > > + return -ENOENT; > > Correct test added. > > > - if (unlikely(!inode)) > > - return -ENOENT; > > Incorrect test removed. > > And again, maybe I'm misreading the patch. But it does look like it's > wrong in the middle of the series, which would make bisection if > there's some related bug "interesting". Bisect hazard on botched reordering, actually. Fixed (IOW, that should've been if (!*inode) already in #11).