1. 09 12月, 2016 2 次提交
  2. 28 9月, 2016 1 次提交
  3. 23 1月, 2016 1 次提交
    • A
      wrappers for ->i_mutex access · 5955102c
      Al Viro 提交于
      parallel to mutex_{lock,unlock,trylock,is_locked,lock_nested},
      inode_foo(inode) being mutex_foo(&inode->i_mutex).
      
      Please, use those for access to ->i_mutex; over the coming cycle
      ->i_mutex will become rwsem, with ->lookup() done with it held
      only shared.
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      5955102c
  4. 31 12月, 2015 1 次提交
  5. 09 12月, 2015 2 次提交
  6. 11 5月, 2015 2 次提交
    • A
      don't pass nameidata to ->follow_link() · 6e77137b
      Al Viro 提交于
      its only use is getting passed to nd_jump_link(), which can obtain
      it from current->nameidata
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      6e77137b
    • A
      new ->follow_link() and ->put_link() calling conventions · 680baacb
      Al Viro 提交于
      a) instead of storing the symlink body (via nd_set_link()) and returning
      an opaque pointer later passed to ->put_link(), ->follow_link() _stores_
      that opaque pointer (into void * passed by address by caller) and returns
      the symlink body.  Returning ERR_PTR() on error, NULL on jump (procfs magic
      symlinks) and pointer to symlink body for normal symlinks.  Stored pointer
      is ignored in all cases except the last one.
      
      Storing NULL for opaque pointer (or not storing it at all) means no call
      of ->put_link().
      
      b) the body used to be passed to ->put_link() implicitly (via nameidata).
      Now only the opaque pointer is.  In the cases when we used the symlink body
      to free stuff, ->follow_link() now should store it as opaque pointer in addition
      to returning it.
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      680baacb
  7. 16 4月, 2015 1 次提交
  8. 02 4月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 25 10月, 2013 1 次提交
  10. 30 4月, 2013 1 次提交
  11. 10 4月, 2013 2 次提交
  12. 19 11月, 2012 1 次提交
    • E
      procfs: Use the proc generic infrastructure for proc/self. · e656d8a6
      Eric W. Biederman 提交于
      I had visions at one point of splitting proc into two filesystems.  If
      that had happened proc/self being the the part of proc that actually deals
      with pids would have been a nice cleanup.  As it is proc/self requires
      a lot of unnecessary infrastructure for a single file.
      
      The only user visible change is that a mounted /proc for a pid namespace
      that is dead now shows a broken proc symlink, instead of being completely
      invisible.  I don't think anyone will notice or care.
      Signed-off-by: NEric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
      e656d8a6