lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: debugfs_remove() vs. anything that is dynamic
From
Date

> I think, however, it's not correct when you have a hard-link, and the
> NULLing out of i_private must be done depending on (inode->i_nlink == 1)
> instead of unconditionally. I will have to test that once I figure out
> if (and if yes, how) you can even create inodes with nlink>1 with simple
> attributes.
>
> --- everything.orig/fs/libfs.c 2008-04-04 22:37:18.000000000 +0200
> +++ everything/fs/libfs.c 2008-04-04 22:37:37.000000000 +0200
> @@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ int simple_unlink(struct inode *dir, str
> {
> struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
>
> + inode->i_private = NULL;

Hm, no, this is likely to conflict with other users of simple_unlink
that use i_private afterwards and don't expect it to have been NULL'ed
out. I haven't found a solution yet.

johannes
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-04 23:23    [W:2.755 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site