[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac3eb2510905210306o48bdf4c8rf7459b35aa521998@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:06:18 +0200
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
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,
Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] sysfs: Implement sysfs_rename_link
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 07:35, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> +int sysfs_rename_link(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobject *targ,
>> + const char *old, const char *new)
>> +{
>> + sysfs_remove_link(kobj, old);
>> + return sysfs_create_link(kobj, targ, new);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Removal and creation are done in the reverse order compared to the one
> used in device rename. The important difference is that previously
> failed operation was noop whereas it now would remove the current
> link. I think the old order is correct.
The target string is composed on-demand, and it always points to the
same kobject and *targ is not needed, right?
Can't we just change the name of the link, instead of removing and
re-creating the entire thing, and all these issues go away?
Thanks,
Kay
--
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