Tariq Saeed
2015-Apr-16 18:51 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl() are also called from the VFS so we must take inode lock
On 04/16/2015 01:48 AM, Junxiao Bi wrote:> I think "return ERR_PTR(ret);" is more simple here.True. I am guilty of just copy-paste from an older kernel.> Also why you check "status != -ENOENT" in ocfs2_iop_set_acl() but not hereSame reason -- copy-and-paste from an older kernel. Having said that, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Does it? I have no objection to applying your suggestions and re-submitting the patch. Mark, what is the protocol for that. Do I need to mention that this is a re-sumit? Thanks, -Tariq Saeed
Mark Fasheh
2015-Apr-16 21:15 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl() are also called from the VFS so we must take inode lock
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:51:41AM -0700, Tariq Saeed wrote:> I have no objection to applying your suggestions and re-submitting the > patch. Mark, what is the protocol for that. Do I need to mention > that this is a re-sumit?If you're re-submitting something that hasn't gone upstream yet it's sufficient to add a 'V2' (or whatever you like) to the subject line. Also, a change log in those cases is nice. Thanks, --Mark -- Mark Fasheh