On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > The difference from your variant is that you use the stack to hold >> > pointers to ancestors of the current victim. You get to the parent >> > of said victim by discarding a stack frame. No need, since the >> > victim contained an explicit pointer to its parent... >> >> Except I thought NULL was passed? > > AFAICS, your variant removes _everything_ in the parent. IOW, instead > of > rm -rf $ROOT/$RELATIVE_PATH > you do > test -n $ROOT && rm -rf $ROOT/* > rm $ROOT/$RELATIVE_PATH > which is not the same thing... Crap, yes, I see now thanks. I can't see how we can safely traverse the tree to find the respective struct proc_dir_entry for the passed name as a modular solution. That is, in order to rm -rf $ROOT/$RELATIVE_PATH I first need the $ROOT/$RELATIVE_PATH struct proc_dir_entry. Any recommendations? Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
