[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [WTF] ->setattr() locking changes

On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Comments? If you don't see any problems with this variant I'll do it.
> OTOH, we might be better off taking ->i_sem in all callers of notify_change().

That was my first reaction on Dave's patch, but on the other hand it then
looked so simple to just let notify_change() do the locking (none of the
places I looked at wanted to do anything else), that it looked better
inside notify_change.

I agree with you that doing the locking outside would clean some stuff up,
since things like write already have the lock for other reasons.

> Hmm... While we are at it, why don't we remove suid/sgid on truncate(2)?

Are there any standards saying either way? But yes, it sounds logical.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.047 / U:2.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site