From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aristeu Rozanski Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:56:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20130313135632.GA4417@redhat.com> References: <20130215165543.131282532@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130215165543.733711059@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130219211208.GC5399@mail.hallyn.com> <20130219212015.GF11173@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130219212015.GF11173-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" , Serge Hallyn Hi Tejun, On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 04:20:16PM -0500, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:12:08PM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org): > > > + } else { > > > + /* > > > + * in the other possible cases: > > > + * root's behavior: allow, devcg's: deny > > > + * root's behavior: deny, devcg's: deny > > > + * the exception will be removed > > > + */ > > > > Technically this case isn't needed, right? Will the dev_exception_rm() > > also be done by revalidate_active_exceptions()? So it's safe (but > > not necessary) to drop the else here. Though the comment is very > > informative, and it might be worth keeping the code as is for clarity. > > that's correct, it'll end up being removed by > revalidate_active_exceptions(). if others have no objection, I'll keep > it > > Thanks for the reviews Serge, much appreciated did you pick this series up for 3.10 or you want me to resubmit? -- Aristeu