Hello, Eric. Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Well, it can be trivially fixed by checking the removed flag. The >> add/rm thing is designed to help additions and removals of multiple >> nodes at one go and I'd really like to see it working that way. Any >> chance you can change code toward that direction? > > Yes. We definitely need to check the removed flag in sysfs_add_one. > Regardless of anything else. > > I need to sleep on this but I am inclined to get rid of the rest of > the complications simply by failing the removal of non-empty > directories. Going through the upper layers and making them properly > responsible for their actions. > > I am afraid friendlier in this circumstance might equate to easier > to misuse and let code bugs pile up. I'm going through the latter part of the patchset and the code around this area gets much simpler there. Would it be possible to make it atomic after the simplification? Requiring recursive deletion from all the callers is silly and error prone. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
