[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1177429458.15516.31.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:44:18 +0000
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Copy i_flags to ext3 inode flags on write (version 2)
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:35 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 24-04-07 10:14:37, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > I think you need a call to ext3_get_inode_flags in one more place. In
> > ext3_ioctl(), EXT3_IOC_SETFLAGS modifies the flags based on what is in
> > ei->i_flags, so this code should make sure that ei->i_flags is in sync
> > with inode->i_flags.
> Hmm, I don't think so. The code does:
> flags = flags & EXT3_FL_USER_MODIFIABLE;
> flags |= oldflags & ~EXT3_FL_USER_MODIFIABLE;
> ei->i_flags = flags;
> So all EXT3_FL_USER_MODIFIABLE are overwritten by what user has supplied,
> which happens to be a superset of flags influenced by
> ext3_get_inode_flags(). On the other hand, from some point of view, after your
> change the code is safer (in case we add some new unmodifiable flags) so I
> don't object against adding the call. I just wanted to point out, that
> currently there's no difference...
Okay. I see that that's the case. I was thinking that individual flags
could be set through the ioctl, but it takes the whole set. I don't
really see the need to keep my patch from a safety perspective, but do
what you want.
Thanks,
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists