Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disait derniÃrement que :
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.11-rc4/2.6.11-rc4-mm1/
>
>
> - Various fixes and updates all over the place. Things seem to have slowed
> down a bit.
>
> - Last, final, ultimate call: if anyone has patches in here which are 2.6.11
> material, please tell me.
>
>
>
> Changes since 2.6.11-rc3-mm1:
[snip]
> +inotify.patch
>
> Not sure if this is the latest version.
it is the latest Robert Love posted against -mm kernels, but in
inotify_ignore():
static int inotify_ignore(struct inotify_device *dev, s32 wd)
{
struct inotify_watch *watch;
int ret = 0;
spin_lock(&dev->lock);
watch = dev_find_wd(dev, wd);
spin_unlock(&dev->lock); <------------- lock is released, but
if (!watch) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
__remove_watch(watch, dev); <---------- must be called with lock held
out:
spin_unlock(&dev->lock); <------------- anyway, lock is
return ret; released and sub_preempt_count
} BUG's on SMP and PREEMPT
__remove_watch() must be called with ->lock held on dev.
Anyway, ->lock is released after label out.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/drivers/char/inotify.c 2005-02-23 11:55:21.321385752 +0100
+++ b/drivers/char/inotify.c 2005-02-23 11:55:29.772101048 +0100
@@ -952,7 +952,7 @@
spin_lock(&dev->lock);
watch = dev_find_wd(dev, wd);
- spin_unlock(&dev->lock);
+
if (!watch) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
--
> Can you explain this behaviour?
Yes
--
Alan
[Oh wait you want to know why...]
- Alan Cox on linux-kernel
