OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 00/11] sysfs tagged directories V6
Re: [PATCH 00/15] sysfs support for namespaces [message #31703 is a reply to message #31675] Mon, 07 July 2008 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Cornelia Huck is currently offline  Cornelia Huck
Messages: 16
Registered: August 2007
Junior Member
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:42:57 -0700,
ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:

> 
> > These patches are based off of 2.6.26-rc8 + the -gregkh tree from
> > last night.  Hopefully that means they apply -mm -gregkh and
> > -linux-next.
> 
> A quick update.   My patchset conflicts with the recently added
>   driver-core-suppress-sysfs-warnings-for-device_rename.patch
> 
> > driver core: Suppress sysfs warnings for device_rename().
> > 
> > Renaming network devices to an already existing name is not
> > something we want sysfs to print a scary warning for, since the
> > callers can deal with this correctly. So let's introduce
> > sysfs_create_link_nowarn() which gets rid of the common warning.
> 
> This patch is unnecessary as that path is never exercised anymore.
> as: dev_change_name returns early in the case of a noop rename.

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.

> 
> 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.)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [PATCH 0/4] MIB: add struct net to UDP accounting macros
Next Topic: design of user namespaces
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jul 03 19:21:12 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02312 seconds