On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 09:19:53PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > I don't think this is a good idea. The errors in __f_setown come from > > the security modules, and they could change easily. If you can convince > > the LSM people to change their file_set_fowner routine to return void > > we could change __f_setown to return void as well and be done with it, > > but without that this looks too dangerous. > > > > Understood. I figured that this might not be acceptable. I can make > this propagate the error back up, but cleaning up the mess may not be > easy. I'll see what I can do. I'd say talk to the LSM people. Right now they are only using it to set up private data pointers, so they might agree on turning it into a void return. Or just be bold and do that work yourself, include it in this series and just Cc them. -- 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
