From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755000Ab0BRBCE (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:02:04 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:32775 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752509Ab0BRBCA (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:02:00 -0500 To: Neil Brown Cc: Greg KH , Greg KH , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <19314.1869.847327.15190@notabene.brown> <20100210230625.GB678@suse.de> <20100211223235.GC30430@suse.de> <20100217223848.GA31557@kroah.com> <20100218113912.4a3d36e9@notabene.brown> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:01:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20100218113912.4a3d36e9@notabene.brown> (Neil Brown's message of "Thu\, 18 Feb 2010 11\:39\:12 +1100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Neil Brown X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Neil Brown writes: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:38:48 -0800 > Greg KH wrote: >> Got it, I've fixed this by hand. >> >> > > Thanks. > I hadn't sent you a fix myself (As requested) as I got the impression from > the following discussion that a different approach would be taken. > > I'm happy either way though. I had the same impression. For simplicity I didn't base my patches on Neils because I would just have had to undo it when I modified directories and symlinks to not mess with s_active. Eric