2.4.28-rc1, more lost patches [6/10]

2.4.28-rc1, more lost patches [6/10]

[sezeroz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 118 bytes --]


[6/10] cdrom: If the device is opened O_EXCL but there are
other openers, return busy. From ac/redhat. (by Arjan??)


[-- Attachment #2: cdrom-O_EXCL.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 590 bytes --]


from -ac / redhat
location of code moved upwards a bit

diff -urN 28rc1/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c 28rc1_aac/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c
--- 28rc1/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c	2003-11-28 20:26:20.000000000 +0200
+++ 28rc1_aac/drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c	2004-10-24 00:58:09.000000000 +0300
@@ -465,6 +465,10 @@
 	if ((cdi = cdrom_find_device(dev)) == NULL)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
+	/* If the device is opened O_EXCL but there are other openers, return busy */
+	if ( (fp->f_flags & O_EXCL) && (cdi->use_count>0) )
+		return -EBUSY;
+
 	if ((fp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) && !CDROM_CAN(CDC_DVD_RAM))
 		return -EROFS;
 

Re: 2.4.28-rc1, more lost patches [6/10]

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 12:40 +0300, sezeroz@ttnet.net.tr wrote:
> [6/10] cdrom: If the device is opened O_EXCL but there are
> other openers, return busy. From ac/redhat. (by Arjan??)

this is a "feature" patch not a strict bugfix, so I'm not convinced it's
suitable for 2.4 inclusion anymore.

-- 

Re: 2.4.28-rc1, more lost patches [6/10]

[O.Sezer]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 12:40 +0300, sezeroz@ttnet.net.tr wrote:
> 
>>[6/10] cdrom: If the device is opened O_EXCL but there are
>>other openers, return busy. From ac/redhat. (by Arjan??)
> 
> 
> this is a "feature" patch not a strict bugfix, so I'm not convinced it's
> suitable for 2.4 inclusion anymore.
> 

Do you think this would change 2.4-cdrom behavior incompatibly?
It is not that extreme I think...

Re: 2.4.28-rc1, more lost patches [6/10]

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:47 +0300, O.Sezer wrote:

> 
> Do you think this would change 2.4-cdrom behavior incompatibly?
> It is not that extreme I think...

wrong question ;)
for a very frozen tree like 2.4... the question is: what is the pressing reason to add this.
Not: why not add it.