On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> 
> > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> > fail the removal then your patch is the way to go.
> >
> > Greg?
> 
> Oliver is right that we cannot allow device_remove_file() to fail.  In
> fact we can't even allow it to block until all the existing open file
> references are closed.
> 
> Our major questions have to do with the details of the patch itself.  In
> particular, we are worried about possible races with the VFS and the
> handling of the inode's usage count.  Can you examine the patch carefully
> to see if it is okay?
> 

Sorry for late reply.. I reviewed the patch and it looks ok me.

Thanks
Maneesh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel

Reply via email to