Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-08 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 13:11:45 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:24 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > > > 1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration c

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-07 Thread NeilBrown
On Fri, Feb 05 2021, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > >> A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file >> in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so >> they can be excused. The result is a possible

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-07 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 14:29:24 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file > > > in a non-"standard" way ... though the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-06 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:35:50 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > > > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file > > in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so > > they can be excused. The resul

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-05 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file > in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so > they can be excused. The result is a possible leak - of memory in one > case, of references to

[PATCH 0/3] Fix some seq_file users that were recently broken

2021-02-04 Thread NeilBrown
A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so they can be excused. The result is a possible leak - of memory in one case, of references to a 'transport' in the other. These three patches: 1/ document