From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hogan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 40/40] fs: dafs: Add DAFS filesystem for metag Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:39:25 +0000 Message-ID: <50917E6D.1050901@imgtec.com> References: <1351700061-7203-1-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <1351700061-7203-41-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <20121031164238.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121031164238.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 31/10/12 16:42, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:14:21PM +0000, James Hogan wrote: >> +static int fserrno; > > ... and nothing visible serializing its users. AFAICS, there's nothing > stopping one thread from doing this fscall thing, then deciding to check > what's in fserrno only to find that *another* thread has also done > fscall - a different one, with different results and different value > stored in fserrno. Yep, I'll fix that. Thanks for taking a look James From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hogan Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 40/40] fs: dafs: Add DAFS filesystem for metag Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:39:25 +0000 Message-ID: <50917E6D.1050901@imgtec.com> References: <1351700061-7203-1-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <1351700061-7203-41-git-send-email-james.hogan@imgtec.com> <20121031164238.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , To: Al Viro Return-path: Received: from multi.imgtec.com ([194.200.65.239]:49684 "EHLO multi.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757569Ab2JaTja (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:39:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20121031164238.GJ2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 31/10/12 16:42, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 04:14:21PM +0000, James Hogan wrote: >> +static int fserrno; > > ... and nothing visible serializing its users. AFAICS, there's nothing > stopping one thread from doing this fscall thing, then deciding to check > what's in fserrno only to find that *another* thread has also done > fscall - a different one, with different results and different value > stored in fserrno. Yep, I'll fix that. Thanks for taking a look James