Hello, sorry about the delay.
Just one nitpick.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:30:18PM -0400, Aristeu Rozanski wrote:
> +static int __simple_xattr_remove(struct simple_xattrs *xattrs,
> + const char *name)
> +{
> + struct simple_xattr *xattr;
> +
> + xattr = __find_xattr(xattrs, name);
> if (xattr) {
> + list_del(&xattr->list);
> kfree(xattr->name);
> kfree(xattr);
> + return 0;
> }
> - return err;
>
> + return -ENODATA;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * xattr REMOVE operation for in-memory/pseudo filesystems
> + */
> +int simple_xattr_remove(struct simple_xattrs *xattrs, const char *name)
> +{
> + int rc;
> +
> + spin_lock(&xattrs->lock);
> + rc = __simple_xattr_remove(xattrs, name);
> + spin_unlock(&xattrs->lock);
> +
> + return rc;
Do we need these two functions? Can't you either collapse
__simple_xttar_remove() into simple_xattr_remove() or just call
__simple_xattr_remove() directly from simple_xattr_set() with locking
handled there? Also, why doesn't simple_xattr_remove() have static?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
