[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171049480.3468@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:50:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc: Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fix broken ownership of /proc/sys/ files
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > We already initialize a _lot_ of fields, including fields that most
> > filesystem would likely end up re-initializing when reading an inode (like
> > i_size and i_nlink). Maybe it would be more sensible to initialize
> > i_gid/uid there too, when we are guaranteed to have that cacheline dirty
> > anyway (because we're initializing everything around those fields).
>
> *nod*
>
> It certainly makes sense to do it in a uniform way - there's enough
> users of new_inode() that want exactly that. I'll do that as soon
> as I get from under a huge pile of pending mail ;-/
Ok. I think zeroing i_mode might be a good idea too. Just to make sure..
> ObPendingStuff: would you mind a series of section annotations? That's
> a bunch of trivial one-liners and it kills the section noise - the remaining
> ones are few and tricky. It had sat around in my tree for several weeks
> and I can certainly carry it until the next cycle, but OTOH this stuff
> *is* trivial and the noise is annoying as hell.
Yeah, it would be good to get rid of at least the bulk of the section
warnings. A lot of them have historically been 100% real problems.
Linus
--
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