On Friday 08 October 2010 18:11:23 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On Friday 08 Oct 2010 14:00:40 Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Tvrtko, > > > > On Wednesday 08 September 2010 10:24:04 Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > Improved version of the fix which does not include the check > > > when permission events are not enabled in configuration and > > > stops processing if no interesting events remain. > > > > > > Current code ignores access replies to permission decisions so > > > fix it in a way which will allow all listeners to still receive > > > non permission events. > > > > I agree with the patch (see comments below), but this explanation is close > > to incomprehensible and not good as a commit message. > > How about this: > > Current code incorrectly ignores responses to permission decisions. When a > single deny response has been received record it and do not send more > permission events. However still send non-permission events to other > clients. Much better, thanks. > Also if ENOMEM, why not try sending to other listeners? My point, exactly. Thanks, Andreas -- 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
