On 07/18, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> (2013/07/17 23:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Once again, I am still not sure and I am asking for your review.
>
> OK,
Good ;)
> > - If we kill .open/release, we do not need the nontrivial
> > refcounting. Everything becomes simple, no need to keep
(2013/07/17 23:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>
>> At a glance, you're trying to change which operation will be
>> failed. Currently, user can not remove an event while someone
>> opens files which related to the event. And this approach
>> changes that the someone
(2013/07/17 23:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 07/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
At a glance, you're trying to change which operation will be
failed. Currently, user can not remove an event while someone
opens files which related to the event. And this approach
changes that the someone can remove
On 07/18, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
(2013/07/17 23:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Once again, I am still not sure and I am asking for your review.
OK,
Good ;)
- If we kill .open/release, we do not need the nontrivial
refcounting. Everything becomes simple, no need to keep
On 07/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> At a glance, you're trying to change which operation will be
> failed. Currently, user can not remove an event while someone
> opens files which related to the event. And this approach
> changes that the someone can remove the event even if the
> files are
On 07/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
At a glance, you're trying to change which operation will be
failed. Currently, user can not remove an event while someone
opens files which related to the event. And this approach
changes that the someone can remove the event even if the
files are opened
(2013/07/17 3:56), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Completely untested and _incomplete_. This ignores instance_delete()
> and ftrace_event_format_fops, at least.
>
> But I am not going to even try to finish this series unless you tell
> me that you agree with this approach.
>
> I have no idea
Hello.
Completely untested and _incomplete_. This ignores instance_delete()
and ftrace_event_format_fops, at least.
But I am not going to even try to finish this series unless you tell
me that you agree with this approach.
I have no idea what else could I miss. I probably understand no more
Hello.
Completely untested and _incomplete_. This ignores instance_delete()
and ftrace_event_format_fops, at least.
But I am not going to even try to finish this series unless you tell
me that you agree with this approach.
I have no idea what else could I miss. I probably understand no more
(2013/07/17 3:56), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Hello.
Completely untested and _incomplete_. This ignores instance_delete()
and ftrace_event_format_fops, at least.
But I am not going to even try to finish this series unless you tell
me that you agree with this approach.
I have no idea what
10 matches
Mail list logo
