[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <469E42BA.7010601@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:41:30 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, gregkh@...e.de,
miles.lane@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: kill an extra put in sysfs_create_link() failure
path
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>>> sysfs_find_dirent() -- to check for -EEXIST -- should be called
>>>> *before* we create the new dentry for the to-be-created symlink
>>>> in the first place. [ It's weird to grab a reference on the target
>>>> for ourselves (and in fact even allocate the new dirent for the
>>>> to-be-created symlink) and /then/ check for erroneous usage,
>>>> and then go about undoing all that we should never have done
>>>> at all. ] So this test could, and should, be made earlier, IMHO.
>>> Locking.
>> Well s/sysfs_find_dirent/sysfs_get_dirent/ then. And then simply put
>> down the reference later.
>
> Isn't that the current code?
Oops, somehow thought you were talking about allocating it first.
Gee... what difference does using sysfs_get_dirent() make? Do you think
the following code is correct?
sd = sysfs_get_dirent("some name");
if (sd != NULL)
return -EEXIST;
lock;
add_new_node("some name");
unlock;
sysfs_put_dirent(sd);
--
tejun
-
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