[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Replace exec_permission_lite() with inlined vfs_permission()
>IMO it's a bad idea. In many cases we have ->permission() but it's
>perfectly OK with being called under dcache_lock - either always or
>in (fs-specific) "fast case".
>I would prefer ->permission_light() that would always be called
>under dcache_lock and besides the usual values could return -EAGAIN.
>In that case ->permission() would be called in a normal way.

OK - a few details/matters of taste:

- how about similar dcache_lock-safe versions of d_op->revalidate()
and i_op->follow_link()?

- an alternative to separate methods is to add a "noblock" argument
to the existing methods. This entails more breakage in the short term.

- permission_light() or permission_lite()? :-)


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:0.051 / U:2.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site