From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix device deny of DEV_ALL Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 02:08:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20120522020857.GA10499@mail.hallyn.com> References: <20120518081912.16779.21065.stgit@t> <20120521140324.GA5091@sergelap> <4FBADF1A.6040303@huawei.com> <20120522015426.GA10344@mail.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120522015426.GA10344-7LNsyQBKDXoIagZqoN9o3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Li Zefan , Serge Hallyn , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, mtosatti-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Amos Kong At line 135, there is if (walk->type == DEV_ALL) goto remove; I wonder if that was meant to be 'if (wh->type == DEV_ALL)'. That seems to fit better with what I would have meant to have happen. But it's already handled by line 342. So I think deleting lines 135-136 might be best. What do you think? Thanks again, Amos and Li. -serge