Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:25:12 -0600 | From | Michael Thompson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/12: eCryptfs] Crypto functions |
| |
On 11/3/05, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@austin.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 20:56 -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote: > > + ecryptfs_fput(lower_file); > > Why the call to ecryptfs_fput() here? The caller does it's own fput on > lower_file.
Hmm, good catch. That slipped through us - and to be hoenst, I have no explination other than, it's wrong. ecryptfs_write_headers should not be responsible for put'ing that which it did not get.
I'm wondering if I should be sending 1 patch per tiny fix like this, or if I should be waiting for a few more changes, so as to not flood the threads with minor patches?
Thanks, Mike - 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/
| |