Jörn Engel a écrit :
On Sat, 29 November 2008 09:44:23 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:+struct dentry *d_alloc_single(const struct qstr *name, struct inode *inode) +{ + struct dentry *entry; + + entry = d_alloc(NULL, name); + if (entry) { + entry->d_sb = inode->i_sb; + entry->d_parent = entry; + entry->d_flags |= DCACHE_SINGLE | DCACHE_DISCONNECTED; + entry->d_inode = inode; + fsnotify_d_instantiate(entry, inode); + security_d_instantiate(entry, inode); + } + return entry;Calling the struct dentry entry had me onfused a bit. I believe everyone else (including the code you removed) uses dentry.
Ah yes, it seems I took it from d_instantiate(), I guess a cleanup patch would be nice.
@@ -918,7 +906,7 @@ struct file *create_write_pipe(int flags) struct inode *inode; struct file *f; struct dentry *dentry; - struct qstr name = { .name = "" }; + static const struct qstr name = { .name = "" };err = -ENFILE;inode = get_pipe_inode();...@@ -371,20 +358,13 @@ static int sock_alloc_fd(struct file **filep, int flags) static int sock_attach_fd(struct socket *sock, struct file *file, int flags) { struct dentry *dentry; - struct qstr name = { .name = "" }; + static const struct qstr name = { .name = "" };These two could even be combined. And of course I realize that I comment on absolute trivialities. On the whole, I couldn't spot a real problem in your patches.
Well, at least you reviewed it, it's the important point ! Thanks Jörn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
