From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753194AbZEUJSz (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 05:18:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751459AbZEUJSr (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 05:18:47 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:56380 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbZEUJSq (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 05:18:46 -0400 To: Tejun Heo Cc: Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cornelia Huck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" References: <1242865694-2100-1-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1242865694-2100-2-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1242865694-2100-3-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1242865694-2100-4-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <4A14F356.3030501@kernel.org> <4A15046A.10106@kernel.org> <4A1512E2.2040505@kernel.org> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 02:18:40 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A1512E2.2040505@kernel.org> (Tejun Heo's message of "Thu\, 21 May 2009 17\:37\:54 +0900") 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-Rcpt-To: tj@kernel.org, ebiederm@aristanetworks.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Tejun Heo X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.2 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 20 to 40% * [score: 0.3964] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.5 XM_Body_Dirty_Words Contains a dirty word * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] sysfs: Handle the general case of removing of directories with subdirectories 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 Tejun Heo writes: > Well, it can be trivially fixed by checking the removed flag. The > add/rm thing is designed to help additions and removals of multiple > nodes at one go and I'd really like to see it working that way. Any > chance you can change code toward that direction? Yes. We definitely need to check the removed flag in sysfs_add_one. Regardless of anything else. I need to sleep on this but I am inclined to get rid of the rest of the complications simply by failing the removal of non-empty directories. Going through the upper layers and making them properly responsible for their actions. I am afraid friendlier in this circumstance might equate to easier to misuse and let code bugs pile up. Eric