[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190102091731.GB3781@kadam>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 12:17:31 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, arve@...roid.com, maco@...roid.com,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] binderfs: implement "max" mount option
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 03:35:49PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> static inline struct binderfs_info *BINDERFS_I(const struct inode *inode)
> @@ -110,10 +132,16 @@ static int binderfs_binder_device_create(struct inode *ref_inode,
>
> /* Reserve new minor number for the new device. */
> mutex_lock(&binderfs_minors_mutex);
> - minor = ida_alloc_max(&binderfs_minors, BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (++info->device_count <= info->mount_opts.max)
> + minor = ida_alloc_max(&binderfs_minors, BINDERFS_MAX_MINOR,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + else
> + minor = -ENOSPC;
> mutex_unlock(&binderfs_minors_mutex);
> - if (minor < 0)
> + if (minor < 0) {
> + --info->device_count;
Isn't this decrement supposed to happen under binderfs_minors_mutex?
> return minor;
> + }
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists