On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:21:21AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > 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. Ah, fine. That explains why I had the check in fsnotify but not inotify. > I'll try to pull down the whole patch series and test for any problems. I guess I should make it available as a git tree or at least a patch rollup. People have spotted a few problems and I've found a few more in testing more filesystems, so maybe hold off testing and I'll get something newer out soon. It would be very appreciated though. Thanks, Nick -- 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
