Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: Access Control Lists for tmpfs | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Date | Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:24:47 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 14:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:23 +0200 > Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> wrote: > > > +static void > > +shmem_set_acl(struct inode *inode, int type, struct posix_acl *acl) > > +{ > > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > > + switch(type) { > > + case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS: > > + if (SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl) > > + posix_acl_release(SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl); > > + SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl = posix_acl_dup(acl); > > + break; > > i_lock is "general-purpose, innermost per-inode lock". Calling kfree() > under it makes it no longer "innermost". But kfree() is surely atomic wrt > everything which filesystems and the VFS will want to do, so that's OK.
and lockdep probably will yell loudly if there's a problem.
-- VGER BF report: H 0 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |