public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Maneesh Soni <maneesh@in.ibm.com>,
	gregkh@suse.com, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: race in sysfs between sysfs_remove_file() and read()/write() #2
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:34:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200612041834.34355.oliver@neukum.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0612041153160.3642-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>

Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:57 schrieb Alan Stern:

> I was referring to sysfs_remove_file(), not sysfs_open_file() -- I agree 
> that getting rid of the check_perm() routine is good.  But this isn't:
> 
> >  void sysfs_remove_file(struct kobject * kobj, const struct attribute * attr)
> >  {
> > -       sysfs_hash_and_remove(kobj->dentry,attr->name);
> > +       struct dentry *d = kobj->dentry;
> > +
> > +       sysfs_hash_and_remove(d, attr->name);
> >  }
> 
> There's no apparent advantage to introducing the local variable d, either 
> in terms of execution speed or readability.  (Although the original source 
> line should have a space after the comma.)

Yes, correct, it is a remainder of using the dentry twice in that routine.
Then a local variable saved a recomputation. I can redo it, sorry.
However, it doesn't affect correctness, so I won't distract further by
doing an essentially cosmetic change.

	Regards
		Oliver

  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-04 17:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-01 22:43 race in sysfs between sysfs_remove_file() and read()/write() #2 Oliver Neukum
2006-12-04  4:43 ` Maneesh Soni
2006-12-04  6:38   ` Oliver Neukum
2006-12-04 13:04     ` Maneesh Soni
2006-12-04 13:58       ` Oliver Neukum
2006-12-04 16:06       ` Alan Stern
2006-12-04 16:35         ` Oliver Neukum
2006-12-04 16:57           ` Alan Stern
2006-12-04 17:34             ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2006-12-11 10:43         ` Maneesh Soni
2006-12-11 23:05           ` Greg KH
2006-12-04 18:47       ` Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200612041834.34355.oliver@neukum.org \
    --to=oliver@neukum.org \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=maneesh@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox