Re: [PATCH 12/12: eCryptfs] Crypto functions

Michael Thompson
2005-11-03T22:25:15Z

On 11/3/05, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@austin.ibm.com> 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