Re: [RESEND] The initmpfs patches.

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

On 07/15/2013 04:01:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:06:39 -0500 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>  
> wrote:
> 
> > Attached, so you don't have to fish them out of:
> >
> >    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1306.3/04204.html
> 
> Too hard.  Especially when I want to reply to a patch.  Please resend
> as a patch series in the time-honoured fashion?

Ok.

(Balsa is such an incompetent email client I wrote a python script to  
do this via raw smtp, and I'm always convinced it's going to screw up  
the send. But I think I've got it debugged now...)

> > --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> > @@ -247,7 +247,14 @@ struct dentry *ramfs_mount(struct  
> file_system_type *fs_type,
> >  static struct dentry *rootfs_mount(struct file_system_type  
> *fs_type,
> >  	int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data)
> >  {
> > -	return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags|MS_NOUSER, data,  
> ramfs_fill_super);
> > +	static int once;
> > +
> > +	if (once)
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +	else
> > +		once++;
> > +
> > +	return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags, data, ramfs_fill_super);
> >  }
> 
> The patches do this in a couple of places.  The treatment of `once' is
> obviously racy.  Probably it is unlikely to matter in these contexts,
> but it does set a poor example.  And it's so trivially fixed with, for
> example, test_and_set_bit() that I do think it's worth that change.

Fixing in new series. Retesting will probably delay the resend until  
morning.

Thanks,

Rob