On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 09:44 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 02:01:05PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:51 AM, <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > And yet in this case we do check for dentry->d_parent == dentry. (my > > unknowing self thinks we'd want to check in all places) > > I think you're right, I think we need checks there too... > > BTW Is there a way to test the fsnotify code? I thought inotify was > supposed to be implemented with fsnotify, but I see quite a lot > of duplicated (or very similar) code... We've also still got > inotify calls in fs/ (inotify_umount_inodes). and CONFIG_INOTIFY and > CONFIG_FSNOTIFY conditionals in there too. Would it be possible to > move that out into fsnotify calls? (fsnotify_inode_init_once or > whatever). > > (Sorry to hijack your good review comments :)) Actually inotify.c in linux-next is dead code which I plan to remove in .32. In .31 inotify.c is used by the audit subsystem but inotify as seen by userspace is implemented on top of fsnotify. I'll try to pull down the whole patch series and test for any problems. -Eric -- 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
