1. 16 4月, 2009 3 次提交
  2. 15 4月, 2009 8 次提交
  3. 12 4月, 2009 5 次提交
  4. 08 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 03 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  6. 02 4月, 2009 2 次提交
  7. 31 3月, 2009 1 次提交
    • A
      proc 2/2: remove struct proc_dir_entry::owner · 99b76233
      Alexey Dobriyan 提交于
      Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy
      as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL
      ->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting
      in module refcount underflow.
      
      We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops
      and ->data.
      
      But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment)
      and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when
      switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give
      some thoughts.
      
      ->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for
      protection.
      
      rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm.
      And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular.
      We definitely don't want such modular code.
      
      Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller.
      
      So, let's nuke it.
      
      Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight.
      
      http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454Signed-off-by: NAlexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
      99b76233
  8. 30 3月, 2009 3 次提交
  9. 25 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  10. 16 3月, 2009 1 次提交
    • J
      Rationalize fasync return values · 60aa4924
      Jonathan Corbet 提交于
      Most fasync implementations do something like:
      
           return fasync_helper(...);
      
      But fasync_helper() will return a positive value at times - a feature used
      in at least one place.  Thus, a number of other drivers do:
      
           err = fasync_helper(...);
           if (err < 0)
                   return err;
           return 0;
      
      In the interests of consistency and more concise code, it makes sense to
      map positive return values onto zero where ->fasync() is called.
      
      Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
      Signed-off-by: NJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
      60aa4924
  11. 11 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  12. 10 3月, 2009 6 次提交
  13. 09 3月, 2009 7 次提交