From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] sysfs support for namespaces Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:22:43 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20080618170729.808539948@theryb.frec.bull.fr> <485F04E1.70204@gmail.com> <486706C9.9040303@gmail.com> <4869D314.5030403@gmail.com> <486A0751.9080602@gmail.com> <486AF4FA.8020805@gmail.com> <486B060C.7030607@gmail.com> <486C4515.1070007@gmail.com> <486CB051.5000507@fr.ibm.com> <486CF71F.5090405@gmail.com> <20080707134101.518734a9@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Daniel Lezcano , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Linux Containers , Benjamin Thery , To: Cornelia Huck Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:32986 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751714AbYGGMbt (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 08:31:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080707134101.518734a9@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (Cornelia Huck's message of "Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:41:01 +0200") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Cornelia Huck writes: > My impression was that the networking folks didn't want any warnings for > renaming failures, not just not for renaming a device to the same name. Which would be reasonable. Because all of the checks have been done before sysfs is called so if sysfs sees a problem it is a sysfs bug. >> In addition my introduction sysfs_rename_link handles this case >> cleanly by first removing the old link and then creating the new >> link. Preventing false positives when the link names are the same. > > sysfs_rename_link() looks cleaner, I agree. > >> >> So it should be safe to drop Cornelia patch without a reoccurance >> of scary errors. > > Hm, the description looks badly worded - I unfortunately left the old > text unchanged when I respun the patch :( The patch re-introduces the > warning in sysfs_add_one() which had been removed in the meanwhile and > makes device_rename() use a non-warning version. I still think we want > a warning for the general case since this is usually caused be some > problems in the calling code (and the alternative would be to add > checks to all callers.) Right. We just need to get the sysfs paths clean enough that we don't emit false positives. I think I have accomplished that for rename. Eric