From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] sysfs: sysfs_chmod_file handle multiple superblocks Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:31:49 +0900 Message-ID: <48623AB5.9000603@gmail.com> References: <20080618170729.808539948@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <20080618170730.853353875@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <485DD93A.6020600@gmail.com> <486018CB.80005@fr.ibm.com> <48607BE7.2060203@gmail.com> <4860F88B.6090909@fr.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4860F88B.6090909@fr.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Benjamin Thery , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Eric Biederman , Serge Hallyn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Linux Containers List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> I think it would be great if sysfs_chmod_file can do all-or-nothing >>>> instead of failing half way through but given the interface of >>>> notify_change(), it could be difficult to implement. Any ideas? >>> Is it acceptable to queue the notifications in a list until we are in >>> the loop and loop again to notify when exiting the first loop without >>> error ? >> >> Can you please take a look at the following patch? >> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/24484 >> >> Which replaces notify_change() call to two calls to sysfs_setattr() and >> fsnotify_change(). The latter never fails and the former should always >> succeed if inode_change_ok() succeeds (inode_setattr() never fails >> unless the size is changing), so I think the correct thing to do is... >> >> * Separate out sysfs_do_setattr() which doesn't do inode_change_ok() and >> just sets the attributes. Making it a void function which triggers >> WARN_ON() when inode_setattr() fails would be a good idea. >> >> * Implement sysfs_chmod_file() in similar way rename/move are >> implemented - allocate all resources and check conditions and then iff >> everything looks okay commit the operation by calling sysfs_do_setattr(). >> >> How does that sound? > > Does this patch looks like what you are describing ? Yeah, something like that. With looping for all the inodes added, it looks like it will work fine. Thanks. -- tejun