Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:25:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:25:39 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:32273 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:25:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:23:10 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Alexander Viro cc: Trond Myklebust , Dave Hansen , Subject: Re: [WTF] ->setattr() locking changes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > Comments? If you don't see any problems with this variant I'll do it. > > OTOH, we might be better off taking ->i_sem in all callers of notify_change(). That was my first reaction on Dave's patch, but on the other hand it then looked so simple to just let notify_change() do the locking (none of the places I looked at wanted to do anything else), that it looked better inside notify_change. I agree with you that doing the locking outside would clean some stuff up, since things like write already have the lock for other reasons. > Hmm... While we are at it, why don't we remove suid/sgid on truncate(2)? Are there any standards saying either way? But yes, it sounds logical. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/