On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:20:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact that coda_readdir() will _not_ be returning 0 with your change
when called with the arguments old_readdir() gives it? You'll get ret
from filldir, i.e. what you'll normally see will be -EINVAL in case of
fillonedir as callback.
The normal sequence for old_readdir() is
* call fillonedir on the current entry
* have it bump ->result from 0 to 1 and return 0
* advance f_pos to the next entry
* call fillonedir for it
* have it see ->result != 0 and immediately bail out with -EINVAL
* seeing a negative from the callback, foo_readdir does *not* advance
f_pos this time and returns 0 (or at least something non-negative)
* old_readdir() sees non-negative from vfs_readdir() and returns
buf->result (i.e. 1)
Now you've got vfs_readdir() returning -EINVAL in that scenario. See why
old_readdir() needs an update too? It doesn't have the "OK, we'd already
called its filldir, so bugger whatever had happened afterwards" logics -
and it'll need it now.
--