[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100106072029.GA25169@localhost>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:20:29 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: O_* bit numbers uniqueness check
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:07:01PM +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le 06/01/2010 07:55, Wu Fengguang a écrit :
> > The O_* bit numbers are defined in 20+ arch/*, and hence can silently
> > overlap. Add a boot time check to ensure the uniqueness as suggested
> > by David Miller.
> >
> > CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> > CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> > CC: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> > CC: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > ---
> > {
> > + /* please add new bits here to ensure allocation uniqueness */
> > + BUG_ON(20 != hweight32(
> > + O_RDONLY | O_WRONLY | O_RDWR |
> > + O_CREAT | O_EXCL | O_NOCTTY |
> > + O_TRUNC | O_APPEND | O_NONBLOCK |
> > + O_SYNC | FASYNC | O_DIRECT |
> > + O_LARGEFILE | O_DIRECTORY | O_NOFOLLOW |
> > + O_NOATIME | O_CLOEXEC | O_RANDOM |
> > + FMODE_EXEC | FMODE_NONOTIFY));
> > +
>
> I cannot test it, but given O_RDONLY is 0, are you sure 20 bits are actually set ?
Yes, I tested it. The tricky one is O_SYNC, which actually has two bits..
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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