From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758890Ab3BSVUW (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17146 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758582Ab3BSVUU (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:16 -0500 From: Aristeu Rozanski To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Serge Hallyn Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy Message-ID: <20130219212015.GF11173@redhat.com> References: <20130215165543.131282532@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130215165543.733711059@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130219211208.GC5399@mail.hallyn.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130219211208.GC5399@mail.hallyn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:12:08PM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris@redhat.com): > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * in the other possible cases: > > + * root's behavior: allow, devcg's: deny > > + * root's behavior: deny, devcg's: deny > > + * the exception will be removed > > + */ > > Technically this case isn't needed, right? Will the dev_exception_rm() > also be done by revalidate_active_exceptions()? So it's safe (but > not necessary) to drop the else here. Though the comment is very > informative, and it might be worth keeping the code as is for clarity. that's correct, it'll end up being removed by revalidate_active_exceptions(). if others have no objection, I'll keep it Thanks for the reviews Serge, much appreciated -- Aristeu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aristeu Rozanski Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] devcg: propagate local changes down the hierarchy Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:20:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20130219212015.GF11173@redhat.com> References: <20130215165543.131282532@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130215165543.733711059@napanee.usersys.redhat.com> <20130219211208.GC5399@mail.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130219211208.GC5399-7LNsyQBKDXoIagZqoN9o3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo , Serge Hallyn On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:12:08PM +0000, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Aristeu Rozanski (aris-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org): > > + } else { > > + /* > > + * in the other possible cases: > > + * root's behavior: allow, devcg's: deny > > + * root's behavior: deny, devcg's: deny > > + * the exception will be removed > > + */ > > Technically this case isn't needed, right? Will the dev_exception_rm() > also be done by revalidate_active_exceptions()? So it's safe (but > not necessary) to drop the else here. Though the comment is very > informative, and it might be worth keeping the code as is for clarity. that's correct, it'll end up being removed by revalidate_active_exceptions(). if others have no objection, I'll keep it Thanks for the reviews Serge, much appreciated -- Aristeu