Re: [PATCH] Replace exec_permission_lite() with inlined vfs_permission()

From: Paul Menage (
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 21:36:23 EST

>IMO it's a bad idea. In many cases we have ->permission() but it's
>perfectly OK with being called under dcache_lock - either always or
>in (fs-specific) "fast case".
>I would prefer ->permission_light() that would always be called
>under dcache_lock and besides the usual values could return -EAGAIN.
>In that case ->permission() would be called in a normal way.

OK - a few details/matters of taste:

- how about similar dcache_lock-safe versions of d_op->revalidate()
and i_op->follow_link()?

- an alternative to separate methods is to add a "noblock" argument
to the existing methods. This entails more breakage in the short term.

- permission_light() or permission_lite()? :-)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST