On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:21:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> - /* Ensure that fl->fl_filp has compatible f_mode */
> - switch (l->l_type) {
> - case F_RDLCK:
> - if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
> - return -EBADF;
> - break;
> - case F_WRLCK:
> - if (!(filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> - return -EBADF;
> - break;
> - }
> +check_fmode_for_setlk(struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + switch (fl->fl_type) {
> + case F_RDLCK:
> + if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
> + return -EBADF;
> + case F_WRLCK:
> + if (!(fl->fl_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> + return -EBADF;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
Why are we now checking FMODE_WRITE for the RDLCK case ?
Or was losing the break; unintentional ?
Dave
--
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
