On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> >> Actually, that's my fault - check lost in patch reordering. My apologies ;-/ >> Eventually, we want that in fs/splice.c side of things (no point repeating it >> for every buffer, after all), but for now this is the obvious minimal fix. > > Applied. > > Do we actually have files with NULL f_ops pointers? Should we? What > could we possibly do with a file descriptor that doesn't have any > fops?
For the sake of the curious including myself: How would such a NULL f_ops file get created in the first place? > Also, perhaps we should do something more akin to what we do for > dentry functions where we validate them on registration, and we could > fix up or validate read/write pointers, with semantics something like > > if (!fop->write) > fop->write = fop->aio_write ? do_sync_write : EINVAL_write; > if (!fop->read) > fop->read = fop->aio_read ? do_sync_read : EINVAL_read; > > kind of things? > > Not a big deal, perhaps. > > Linus > -- > 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/ -- 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/
