On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday December 18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>>>> " " == M H VanLeeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Trond, Neil I don't know if this is a loopback bug or an NFS
> > > bug but since nfs_fs.h was implicated so I thought one of you
> > > may be interested.
> >
> > > Could you let me know if you know this problem has already been
> > > fixed or if you need more info.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, it's a loopback bug.
>
> I read it the same way.
> Actually, I cannot see the point of copying the "struct file"! Why
> not just take a reference to it? The comment tries to justify it, but
> I don't buy it.
Wish I remembered who had complained when I proposed to kill that copying...
It was introduced back in 2.1.110 and back then comment looked so:
+ /* Backed by a regular file - we need to hold onto
+ a file structure for this file. We'll use it to
+ write to blocks that are not already present in
+ a sparse file. We create a new file structure
+ based on the one passed to us via 'arg'. This is
+ to avoid changing the file structure that the
+ caller is using */
+
I would be happy to get rid of that crap - it was the only reason why I
had to add the sodding file_moveto() and world would be better without it.
If we can kill it off - let's do it and let's take fs/file_table:file_moveto()
along.
IOW, I also think that copying the struct file is wrong. IIRC, complaints were
bogus - losetup requires enough priviliges to make worrying about security
implications somewhat pointless.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
