On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:02:41PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:09:46PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> > > I would definitely prefer EEXIST logics dealt with in fs/namei.c - if nothing
>> > > else, it had been done wrong in too many instances...
>> >
>> > Okay.
>>
>> OK, so I'm taking 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, then add check to fs/namei.c:atomic_open(),
>> leaving the rest of gfs2 ones for gfs2 tree... Give me a few and I'll push
>> that.
>
> Pushed (head at d332c7). That should cover 9p and fuse as well, AFAICS.
> Do you have any problems with that variant?
Just one. This needs to be removed, since this condition is now
explicitly allowed and later checked for:
if (WARN_ON(excl && !(*opened & FILE_CREATED)))
*opened |= FILE_CREATED;
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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
