[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081117040645.GS28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:06:45 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fix broken ownership of /proc/sys/ files
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 03:23:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > D'oh...
>
> So I applied this, but I wonder if it might not be nice to make
> new_inode() (or rather - 'alloc_inode()') initialize some more of the
> really core members.
>
> 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 ;-/
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.
--
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