On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 10:37 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
--- lxc/fs/namei.c~numa_mnt_want_write 2007-06-25 11:05:50.0 -0700
+++ lxc-dave/fs/namei.c 2007-06-25 11:05:50.0 -0700
@@ -230,10 +230,12 @@ int permission(struct inode *inode, int
int retval, submask;
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:27:25AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
I've got this in the next set:
-
- if(IS_RDONLY(nd.dentry-d_inode))
+ /*
+* This is a rare case where using __mnt_is_readonly()
+* is OK without a mnt_want/drop_write() pair. Since
+* not
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:27 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 08:45 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
You probably want to add a big comment explaining why it's fine here.
I've got this in the next set:
-
- if(IS_RDONLY(nd.dentry-d_inode))
+ /*
+* This
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:03:14PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
It is OK to let access() go without using a mnt_want/drop_write()
pair because it doesn't actually do writes to the filesystem,
and it is inherently racy anyway. This is a rare case when it is
OK to use __mnt_is_readonly()
It is OK to let access() go without using a mnt_want/drop_write()
pair because it doesn't actually do writes to the filesystem,
and it is inherently racy anyway. This is a rare case when it is
OK to use __mnt_is_readonly() directly.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
