[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 15:57:44 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: hch@...radead.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [patch 03/15] cgroup: dont call vfs_mkdir
> > Well, I'd hardly call this whole patchset messing up the kernel, and
> > you seemed to agree with most of the patches.
>
> Of course. Good patches will always again, but preparing for apparmor
> is not an excuse for bad patches.
It's not an excuse. It's one of *several* reasons for why the patches
are good. And no, "help *cleanly* integrate AA" is not a reason
against patches.
Please try to keep your arguments technical (like code duplication in
reiserfs, etc), which are perfectly valid. I don't like the reiserfs
duplication, but as I've said, it's needed anyway for some other
reason. I can dig out the original patch and include the description
in this one if that helps.
And yes, all these are cleanups. Recursing into the vfs_ functions
from inside the filesystems is plain wrong most of the time.
For example fsnotify_change() call in fat_generic_ioctl() would
actually *break* after the IS_IMMUTABLE() cleanups, because it's
actually calling this function before changing the "SYS" attribute
(which is interpreted as immutable) on the inode. So without this
cleanup that notify_change() would always fail.
Miklos
--
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