From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Thompson Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12: eCryptfs] Crypto functions Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:25:12 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20051103033220.GD2772@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <20051103035659.GL3005@sshock.rn.byu.edu> <1131055610.9365.17.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Phillip Hellewell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mike@halcrow.us, mhalcrow@us.ibm.com, mcthomps@us.ibm.com, yoder1@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.200]:49449 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407AbVKCWZN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:25:13 -0500 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s14so194474wxc for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:25:12 -0800 (PST) To: Dave Kleikamp In-Reply-To: <1131055610.9365.17.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 11/3/05, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 20:56 -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote: > > + ecryptfs_fput(lower_file); > > Why the call to ecryptfs_fput() here? The caller does it's own fput on > lower_file. Hmm, good catch. That slipped through us - and to be hoenst, I have no explination other than, it's wrong. ecryptfs_write_headers should not be responsible for put'ing that which it did not get. I'm wondering if I should be sending 1 patch per tiny fix like this, or if I should be waiting for a few more changes, so as to not flood the threads with minor patches? Thanks, Mike