[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830805131407y3d94016cn773ba21a42b6098c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 14:07:40 -0700
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Li Zefan" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: pj@....com, xemul@...nvz.org, balbir@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/8]: CGroup Files: Add locking mode to cgroups control files
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * cgroup_file_lock(). Helper for cgroup read/write methods.
> > + * @cgrp: the cgroup being acted on
> > + * @cft: the control file being written to or read from
> > + * *write: true if the access is a write access.
>
> s/*write/@...te
>
Fixed.
> > @@ -1518,16 +1580,21 @@ static ssize_t cgroup_file_read(struct f
> > struct cftype *cft = __d_cft(file->f_dentry);
> > struct cgroup *cgrp = __d_cgrp(file->f_dentry->d_parent);
> >
> > - if (!cft || cgroup_is_removed(cgrp))
> > + if (cgroup_is_removed(cgrp))
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
>
> This check seems redundant now.
>
It's not needed for safety, but it doesn't seem to hurt to check
cgroup_is_removed() prior to doing any copying, since we'll fail after
copying anyway if cgroup_is_removed() returns true (once we've taken
any relevant locks).
Paul
--
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