From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support untagged symlinks to tagged directories. Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:02:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20100721190253.GA25494@kroah.com> References: <20100621231058.GA1066@suse.de> <20100622035631.GA3755@suse.de> <20100708211930.GA15385@kroah.com> <20100708230601.GB17002@kroah.com> <20100719133451.0862ca62.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100720201334.GA11991@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Kay Sievers , Johannes Berg , netdev To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:51887 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752774Ab0GUTC5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:02:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:08:27PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Greg KH writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 01:34:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 16:06:01 -0700 > >> Greg KH wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > > Greg KH writes: > >> > > > >> > > > With this patch, how does the existing code fail as the drivers aren't > >> > > > fixed up? > >> > > > > >> > > > I like this change, just worried it will cause problems if it gets into > >> > > > .35, without your RFC patch. Will it? > >> > > > >> > >> geethanks! > >> > >> On the FC6 test box I have no networking. > > > > Ick. > > > > Eric, any ideas? > > Yes. I just found some time to test my fixes and things are looking > good. It really is just two one line fixes. > > On the other part of this debug with SYSFS_DEPRECATED enabled it > with mac80211_hwsim drivers works fine no problems. I expect the > bnep driver will also be fine. > > What is affecting those two is arguably a bug in the non-deprecated > sysfs mode. > > Regardless here are my fixes. I have split this into a patch for > the warning and a patch for sysfs_delete_link. Because at least > the sysfs_delete_link code needs to make into 2.6.35 if we can. Do these patches obsolete the existing one I have in my tree entitled: Subject: sysfs: Don't allow the creation of symlinks we can't remove or are they on top of that one? thanks, greg k-h