On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 05:36:49PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:16:56PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > >> 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; > > > > D'oh... Fixed and pushed. > > Okay, but moving the fsnotify_create() to after the no-open section > is wrong, I think, It's needed for the case of ->atomic_open() doing > lookup/create/no_open too. What a mess... It's actually even uglier than that - which dentry should we pass to fsnotify_create() in case where finish_no_open() has been given a non-NULL dentry other than one we had passed to ->atomic_open()? I think that version in mainline is actually broken in that respect as far as fuse is concerned, not that anybody sane could expect ...notify to work on fuse. Anyway, I've pushed what I think is a sane fix. Please, review and test - I don't have a setup for testing fsnotify on fuse. -- 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
