On 03/17, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:00:36PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Cleanup. Now that we have f_inode/file_inode() we can use it > > instead of ->f_mapping->host. > > No. This is *not* guaranteed to be the same thing in general; note that > e.g. for block devices ->f_mapping->host is *not* equal to file_inode().
Yes, > It probably is valid in this particular case, And yes (I think). In fact I think ->f_mode is "more correct" in this case. Say, if this uprobe was created by create_trace_uprobe() we use d_inode, and uprobe_mmap/etc uses file_inode() only to compare this pointer with uprobe->inode. But I'll try to recheck, and: > but at the very least you > need to explain that in commit message, OK. Will do, thanks. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
