On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 04:13:06PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote: > 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 for the review. Oliver, care to resend it to me so I can give it some testing in the -mm tree? thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
