On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:56 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > +static int inotify_ignore(struct inotify_device *dev, s32 wd)
> > +{
> > + struct inotify_watch *watch;
> > + struct inode *inode;
> > +
> > + down(&dev->sem);
> > + watch = idr_find(&dev->idr, wd);
> > + if (unlikely(!watch)) {
> > +
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 11:04:33AM -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:56 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > So what happens if
> > * something is holding inotify_sem right now
> > * ten threads call that on the same watch
> > * all of them get to down(&inode->inotify_sem); a
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 22:13 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Or it would, if remove_watch() had been called only once. In the scenario
> above that will not be true.
Thanks.
Robert Love
Double check that we don't race.
Signed-off-by: Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
fs/inotify.c |9 +
> +static int inotify_ignore(struct inotify_device *dev, s32 wd)
> +{
> + struct inotify_watch *watch;
> + struct inode *inode;
> +
> + down(&dev->sem);
> + watch = idr_find(&dev->idr, wd);
> + if (unlikely(!watch)) {
> + up(&dev->sem);
> + return -EINVAL
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 01:13 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> Live from linux.conf.au, below is inotify against 2.6.12-rc3.
Here is an updated rediff for 2.6.12-rc3, with the changes from the last
day or so added:
- Add oneshot support for Tridge and Jeremy.
- Send IN_ATTRIB event on x
5 matches
Mail list logo