Re: Access Control Lists for tmpfs

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 14:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:23 +0200
> Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > +static void
> > +shmem_set_acl(struct inode *inode, int type, struct posix_acl *acl)
> > +{
> > +	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +	switch(type) {
> > +		case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS:
> > +			if (SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl)
> > +				posix_acl_release(SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl);
> > +			SHMEM_I(inode)->i_acl = posix_acl_dup(acl);
> > +			break;
> 
> i_lock is "general-purpose, innermost per-inode lock".  Calling kfree()
> under it makes it no longer "innermost".  But kfree() is surely atomic wrt
> everything which filesystems and the VFS will want to do, so that's OK.

and lockdep probably will yell loudly if there's a problem.



-- 
VGER BF report: H 0
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/