From nobody Sun Nov 24 06:51:16 2024 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D654B1F6687; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 11:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730977834; cv=none; b=h8p6AavuLE1mv0IHfGcoiBm4RXJ4h3vA+fq7vKA3t8oSUJc8k3Tv8fYKMGRm+OJkApv0Qiv5uscSan0JSgxAY5NawC2MBBZL+c+KqqFfKQ8Sw4IMm62tQ3datvGHqvuutAu0AQDV0m7veznC3gUo732zB4HZeU7i5ozTTPF+2tg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730977834; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1WexRfGfAjCbZ7vpocIPygEkhF0DS+Vxup3A6fLnrzg=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bDoAtJq9QjMGrUl+ySn85vlaIkAfIPuR0IuXaCZUrZ7KspesvRX8D21C+e0guXef5nlhmpRJ7KMfRiHiGrBRv/GrjaSlTMl7/V4n86a6L4BKOy/CL4BGrHOvqZ7WZY5pCXU/BFotgKgS08YqsJtVZAWZWiUNCgzEOi+s76+fcWw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.189 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XkfTm39pBzQsf2; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:09:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.16]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6D9180105; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:10:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.175.104.67) by kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:10:23 +0800 From: Zizhi Wo To: , , , CC: , , , , , , , , , , Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] cachefiles: Clean up in cachefiles_commit_tmpfile() Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:06:47 +0800 Message-ID: <20241107110649.3980193-4-wozizhi@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20241107110649.3980193-1-wozizhi@huawei.com> References: <20241107110649.3980193-1-wozizhi@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.178) To kwepemf100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.16) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Currently, cachefiles_commit_tmpfile() will only be called if object->flags is set to CACHEFILES_OBJECT_USING_TMPFILE. Only cachefiles_create_file() and cachefiles_invalidate_cookie() set this flag. Both of these functions replace object->file with the new tmpfile, and both are called by fscache_cookie_state_machine(), so there are no concurrency issues. So the equation "d_backing_inode(dentry) =3D=3D file_inode(object->file)" in cachefiles_commit_tmpfile() will never hold true according to the above conditions. This patch removes this part of the redundant code and does not involve any other logical changes. Signed-off-by: Zizhi Wo Acked-by: David Howells --- fs/cachefiles/namei.c | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/namei.c b/fs/cachefiles/namei.c index 2b3f9935dbb4..7cf59713f0f7 100644 --- a/fs/cachefiles/namei.c +++ b/fs/cachefiles/namei.c @@ -691,11 +691,6 @@ bool cachefiles_commit_tmpfile(struct cachefiles_cache= *cache, } =20 if (!d_is_negative(dentry)) { - if (d_backing_inode(dentry) =3D=3D file_inode(object->file)) { - success =3D true; - goto out_dput; - } - ret =3D cachefiles_unlink(volume->cache, object, fan, dentry, FSCACHE_OBJECT_IS_STALE); if (ret < 0) --=20 2.39.2