[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1157181887.2881.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:24:47 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: Access Control Lists for tmpfs
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 14:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:23 +0200
> Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > +static void
> > +shmem_set_acl(struct inode *inode, int type, struct posix_acl *acl)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + switch(type) {
> > + case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS:
> > + if (SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl)
> > + posix_acl_release(SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl);
> > + SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl = posix_acl_dup(acl);
> > + break;
>
> i_lock is "general-purpose, innermost per-inode lock". Calling kfree()
> under it makes it no longer "innermost". But kfree() is surely atomic wrt
> everything which filesystems and the VFS will want to do, so that's OK.
and lockdep probably will yell loudly if there's a problem.
--
VGER BF report: H 0
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists