On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:15 -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> 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.
>
I'm compiling a test kernel with your proposed change to make sure it
doesn't deadlock. If it works then I'll go with your solution since its
less messy.
Dave
--
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
