On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 07:08:33AM +0000, David Howells wrote: > J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If the only difference is just whether it takes a reference on the > > passed-in cred it might be clearest just to write > > > > set_creds(new); > > > > or > > set_creds(get_creds(new)); > > > > depending on which you want? > > The former would be preferable, if it transfers the reference on the creds to > the task_struct, thus eliminating the need for a put_cred(). I think I was unclear--but I think we're agreeing anyway? I was proposing eliminating the two separate revert_creds() and override_creds() functions and instead using a single set_creds() that always consumes a reference to its argument, requiring the caller to explicitly get a reference (as in the second example above) when necessary. > > Is there a really big advantage to that? On the face of it it strikes > > me as a weird corner case that I'll trip over every time I look at this > > code. > > It'll remove a potential OOM condition. It's a minor optimisation, I think. OK. Let's keep things simple and set that idea aside for now; we've lived with the current groups_alloc(0) behavior for a while, and keeping it another kernel version or two can't be so bad. --b. -- 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
