Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 May 2010 16:19:57 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: sanitize __d_path() | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> |
| |
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote: >> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz> >> > >> > __d_path() no longer appends " (deleted)" to unlinked paths. This is >> > moved into d_path() which is the only caller that cares. >> >> d_path() or equivalent should get "int *deleted" argument to distinguish >> really deleted files. Then users can decide if they care or not. > > Why can't they distinguish deleted files by just calling d_unlinked()?
Why would they want to do it (which means taking locks again and potential incoherence)? The information is right there, ship it upwards:
+ if (deleted) + *deleted = 0; spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock); prepend(&end, &buflen, "\0", 1); - if (d_unlinked(dentry) && - (prepend(&end, &buflen, " (deleted)", 10) != 0)) - goto Elong; + if (d_unlinked(dentry) && deleted) + *deleted = 1;
"(deleted)" as interface sucks, we can't change it, at least, let's make in-kernel interface correct. -- 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/
| |