lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Yet another pipe related oops.
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:44:36PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > I guess you are right, it will not. I guess we need to do what
> > > character devices do and have an "intermediate" fops in order to protect
> > > this. Would that work?
> >
> > You mean, with reassigning ->f_op in ->open()? That'll work, as long as
> > we have exclusion between removal and fetching the sucker in primary
> > ->open()... Where would you prefer to stash fops?
>
> Ick, that's not going to work as the current api just uses a fops and
> debugfs doesn't keep anything else hanging around that referes to
> something "before" that, like 'struct cdev' does.

Er? How about just sticking it into dentry->d_fsdata and letting
debugfs_remove() zero that out? What am I missing here?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-02 01:41    [W:1.210 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site