From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Support untagged symlinks to tagged directories. Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:20:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20100621231058.GA1066@suse.de> <20100622035631.GA3755@suse.de> <20100708211930.GA15385@kroah.com> <20100708230601.GB17002@kroah.com> <20100719133451.0862ca62.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100720201334.GA11991@suse.de> <20100721190253.GA25494@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Kay Sievers , Johannes Berg , netdev To: Greg KH Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:52986 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751437Ab0GUUUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:20:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100721190253.GA25494@kroah.com> (Greg KH's message of "Wed\, 21 Jul 2010 12\:02\:53 -0700") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Greg KH writes: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:08:27PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Greg KH writes: >> >> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 01:34:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 16:06:01 -0700 >> >> Greg KH wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> > > Greg KH writes: >> >> > > >> >> > > > With this patch, how does the existing code fail as the drivers aren't >> >> > > > fixed up? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I like this change, just worried it will cause problems if it gets into >> >> > > > .35, without your RFC patch. Will it? >> >> > > >> >> >> >> geethanks! >> >> >> >> On the FC6 test box I have no networking. >> > >> > Ick. >> > >> > Eric, any ideas? >> >> Yes. I just found some time to test my fixes and things are looking >> good. It really is just two one line fixes. >> >> On the other part of this debug with SYSFS_DEPRECATED enabled it >> with mac80211_hwsim drivers works fine no problems. I expect the >> bnep driver will also be fine. >> >> What is affecting those two is arguably a bug in the non-deprecated >> sysfs mode. >> >> Regardless here are my fixes. I have split this into a patch for >> the warning and a patch for sysfs_delete_link. Because at least >> the sysfs_delete_link code needs to make into 2.6.35 if we can. > > Do these patches obsolete the existing one I have in my tree entitled: > Subject: sysfs: Don't allow the creation of symlinks we can't remove > or are they on top of that one? No. These patches are incremental on top of what you have. In particular patch 1 fixes what is in 2.6.35-rc5, and patch 2 fixes the additional check in: 'sysfs: Don't allow the creation of symlinks we can't remove' Eric