On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:39:30PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
...
> > Alright...so, few things...
> >
> > 1) why do you need the locked/unlocked versions?
> >
> > 2) instead of passing a flag to a common function, why not have:
> >
> > vfs_setxattr_locked(....)
> > {
> > // original code minus the lock/unlock calls
> > }
> >
> > vfs_setxattr(....)
> > {
> > mutex_lock(...);
> > vfs_setxattr_locked(...);
> > mutex_unlock(...);
> > }
>
> What we do and what you propose aren't logically equivalent. There is a
> permission check inside vfs_setxattr before the mutex lock.
Ah, right. I didn't notice the @@ line...
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.
--
Keyboard not found!
Press F1 to enter Setup
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
