On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:38:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > Comments? I'd obviously prefer to solve it that way (i.e. leave
> > ->f_pos untouched if vfs_read() returns an error), but I might be missing
> > some case where we
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 08:38:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Comments? I'd obviously prefer to solve it that way (i.e. leave
-f_pos untouched if vfs_read() returns an error), but I might be missing
some
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> Comments? I'd obviously prefer to solve it that way (i.e. leave
> ->f_pos untouched if vfs_read() returns an error), but I might be missing
> some case where we want position updated even though read() returns an
> error. I can't come
We have an unpleasant HPFS (at least) race with read(2) vs. unlink(2)
The thing is, HPFS and several other filesystems keep track of all opened
struct file for directory and update the position in it upon directory
modifications. For HPFS it's particulary painful, since it encodes the
We have an unpleasant HPFS (at least) race with read(2) vs. unlink(2)
The thing is, HPFS and several other filesystems keep track of all opened
struct file for directory and update the position in it upon directory
modifications. For HPFS it's particulary painful, since it encodes the
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Al Viro v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk wrote:
Comments? I'd obviously prefer to solve it that way (i.e. leave
-f_pos untouched if vfs_read() returns an error), but I might be missing
some case where we want position updated even though read() returns an
6 matches
Mail list logo
