Hi Greg,
>> >Try this instead:
>> >if (!de)
>> >return -ENOMEM;
>> >if ((IS_ERR(de)) && (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
>> >return PTR_ERR(de);
>> >return 0;
>> >
>> >That should cover everything properly, right?
>>
>> In case memory could not be allocated, why does
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:07:56PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hello Greg,
>
>
> On Feb 20 2007 20:05, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >Try this instead:
> > if (!de)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > if ((IS_ERR(de)) && (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
> > return PTR_ERR(de);
> >
Hello Greg,
On Feb 20 2007 20:05, Greg KH wrote:
>
>Try this instead:
> if (!de)
> return -ENOMEM;
> if ((IS_ERR(de)) && (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
> return PTR_ERR(de);
> return 0;
>
>That should cover everything properly, right?
In case memory
Hello Greg,
On Feb 20 2007 20:05, Greg KH wrote:
Try this instead:
if (!de)
return -ENOMEM;
if ((IS_ERR(de)) (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
return PTR_ERR(de);
return 0;
That should cover everything properly, right?
In case memory could not be
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:07:56PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hello Greg,
On Feb 20 2007 20:05, Greg KH wrote:
Try this instead:
if (!de)
return -ENOMEM;
if ((IS_ERR(de)) (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
return PTR_ERR(de);
return 0;
That
Hi Greg,
Try this instead:
if (!de)
return -ENOMEM;
if ((IS_ERR(de)) (PTR_ERR(de) != -ENODEV))
return PTR_ERR(de);
return 0;
That should cover everything properly, right?
In case memory could not be allocated, why does not securityfs_*() return
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Feb 20 2007 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >> > Hello list,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > in security/inode.c, the comment
On Feb 20 2007 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> > Hello list,
>> >
>> >
>> > in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
>> >
>> >If securityfs is not enabled in
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Hello list,
> >
> >
> > in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
> >
> > If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the value -ENODEV
> > will
Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hello list,
>
>
> in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
>
> If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the value -ENODEV
> will be returned. It is not wise to check for this value, but
> rather,
Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello list,
in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the value -ENODEV
will be returned. It is not wise to check for this value, but
rather, check for
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello list,
in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the value -ENODEV
will be returned.
On Feb 20 2007 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello list,
in security/inode.c, the comment for securityfs_create_dir() reads:
If securityfs is not enabled in the kernel, the
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:45:40AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Feb 20 2007 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:18:49PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Jan Engelhardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hello list,
in security/inode.c, the comment for
14 matches
Mail list logo