On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 17:34 +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> > > function that doesn't have the outer
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
> >
> > Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> > function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
> > that, then use it in
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
> that, then use it in autofs?
Yup. That's the standard pattern, although usually we *strive* to
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 07:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
> >
> > +static inline int __simple_empty(struct dentry *dentry)
> > +{
>
> This seems completely bogus.
>
> It's a duplicate of the existing fs/libfs.c "simple_empty()" function,
> but
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> +static inline int __simple_empty(struct dentry *dentry)
> +{
This seems completely bogus.
It's a duplicate of the existing fs/libfs.c "simple_empty()" function,
but without taking the outer lock.
That kind of code duplication - and doing it
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ian Kent ik...@redhat.com wrote:
+static inline int __simple_empty(struct dentry *dentry)
+{
This seems completely bogus.
It's a duplicate of the existing fs/libfs.c simple_empty() function,
but without taking the outer lock.
That kind of code duplication -
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 07:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Ian Kent ik...@redhat.com wrote:
+static inline int __simple_empty(struct dentry *dentry)
+{
This seems completely bogus.
It's a duplicate of the existing fs/libfs.c simple_empty() function,
but
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent ik...@redhat.com wrote:
Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
that, then use it in autofs?
Yup. That's the standard pattern, although usually we
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent ik...@redhat.com wrote:
Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
that, then use it
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 17:34 +, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent ik...@redhat.com wrote:
Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
function that doesn't have the outer
From: Ian Kent
For direct (and offset) mounts, if an automounted mount is manually
umounted the trigger mount dentry can appear non-empty causing it to
not trigger mounts. This can also happen if there is a file handle
leak in a user space automounting application.
It happens because, when the
From: Ian Kent ra...@themaw.net
For direct (and offset) mounts, if an automounted mount is manually
umounted the trigger mount dentry can appear non-empty causing it to
not trigger mounts. This can also happen if there is a file handle
leak in a user space automounting application.
It happens
12 matches
Mail list logo
