From: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr>
---
This patch adjusts the code so that the alignment matches the current
semantics. I have no idea if it is the intended semantics, though. Should
the call to nfs_setsecurity also be under the else?
fs/nfs/inode.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
index af6e806..d8ad685 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ nfs_fhget(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fh *fh, struct
nfs_fattr *fattr, st
unlock_new_inode(inode);
} else
nfs_refresh_inode(inode, fattr);
- nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
+ nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
dprintk("NFS: nfs_fhget(%s/%Ld fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d)\n",
inode->i_sb->s_id,
(long long)NFS_FILEID(inode),
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
