[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1vdnuyftb.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:40 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] sysfs: Handle the general case of removing of directories with subdirectories
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
> Well, it can be trivially fixed by checking the removed flag. The
> add/rm thing is designed to help additions and removals of multiple
> nodes at one go and I'd really like to see it working that way. Any
> chance you can change code toward that direction?
Yes. We definitely need to check the removed flag in sysfs_add_one.
Regardless of anything else.
I need to sleep on this but I am inclined to get rid of the rest of
the complications simply by failing the removal of non-empty
directories. Going through the upper layers and making them properly
responsible for their actions.
I am afraid friendlier in this circumstance might equate to easier
to misuse and let code bugs pile up.
Eric
--
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