On 7/18/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Satyam Sharma wrote:
> sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
> *before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
>
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
for ourselves (and in fact even allocate
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Readability, fewer LOC, 308 lesser bytes in kernel image and
> faster for the common case -- not good enough for you?! Oh, well.
Sorry, not agreed on readability. The rest doesn't really matter too
much and please stop
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
>> > *before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
>> > in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
>> > for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > > On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
>> > >> symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> A trivial nit:
>
> The cleanup ignores the return of sysfs_addrm_finish() -- functions
> such as those could and should be void-returning. It doesn't even
> need to return an int for success / failure ... I went over it's
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> Well, I dunno. Probably my taste just sucks. Please feel free to
>> submit patches and/or suggest better ideas.
>
> OK, for example:
>
> sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
> *before* we create
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
>> *before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
>> in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
>> for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for the
>>
Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> Well, I dunno. Probably my taste just sucks. Please feel free to
>> submit patches and/or suggest better ideas.
>
> OK, for example:
>
> sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
> *before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
>
On 7/18/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
> >> symlink creation fails because there's
Hi,
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
>> symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
>> name, the target
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
>> symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
>> name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
>>
Hi Tejun,
Thanks for tracking this down and fixing it.
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link() and once more when the
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:14:45 +0900,
Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
> symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
> name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
>
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link() and once more when the symlink is released.
Fix it by making only the
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link() and once more when the symlink is released.
Fix it by making only the
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:14:45 +0900,
Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link()
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link() and once more when the
Hi Tejun,
Thanks for tracking this down and fixing it.
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put twice - once by failure path of
sysfs_create_link() and
Hi,
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the target sysfs_dirent is put
On 7/18/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Well, I dunno. Probably my taste just sucks. Please feel free to
submit patches and/or suggest better ideas.
OK, for example:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the
Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for the
to-be-created
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Well, I dunno. Probably my taste just sucks. Please feel free to
submit patches and/or suggest better ideas.
OK, for example:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
A trivial nit:
The cleanup ignores the return of sysfs_addrm_finish() -- functions
such as those could and should be void-returning. It doesn't even
need to return an int for success / failure ... I went over it's code,
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a subtle bug in sysfs_create_link() failure path. When
symlink creation fails because there's already a node with the same
name, the
Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for the
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
Readability, fewer LOC, 308 lesser bytes in kernel image and
faster for the common case -- not good enough for you?! Oh, well.
Sorry, not agreed on readability. The rest doesn't really matter too
much and please stop making
Tejun Heo wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
for
On 7/18/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/18/07, Tejun Heo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
*before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
in the first place. [
34 matches
Mail list logo
