Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:07:03 -0500 | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND] The initmpfs patches. |
| |
On 07/15/2013 04:01:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:06:39 -0500 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> > wrote: > > > Attached, so you don't have to fish them out of: > > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1306.3/04204.html > > Too hard. Especially when I want to reply to a patch. Please resend > as a patch series in the time-honoured fashion?
Ok.
(Balsa is such an incompetent email client I wrote a python script to do this via raw smtp, and I'm always convinced it's going to screw up the send. But I think I've got it debugged now...)
> > --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c > > @@ -247,7 +247,14 @@ struct dentry *ramfs_mount(struct > file_system_type *fs_type, > > static struct dentry *rootfs_mount(struct file_system_type > *fs_type, > > int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data) > > { > > - return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags|MS_NOUSER, data, > ramfs_fill_super); > > + static int once; > > + > > + if (once) > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > + else > > + once++; > > + > > + return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags, data, ramfs_fill_super); > > } > > The patches do this in a couple of places. The treatment of `once' is > obviously racy. Probably it is unlikely to matter in these contexts, > but it does set a poor example. And it's so trivially fixed with, for > example, test_and_set_bit() that I do think it's worth that change.
Fixing in new series. Retesting will probably delay the resend until morning.
Thanks,
Rob
| |