Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> I think it would be great if sysfs_chmod_file can do all-or-nothing
>>> instead of failing half way through but given the interface of
>>> notify_change(), it could be difficult to implement.  Any ideas?
>> Is it acceptable to queue the notifications in a list until we are in
>> the loop and loop again to notify when exiting the first loop without
>> error ?
> 
> Can you please take a look at the following patch?
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/24484
> 
> Which replaces notify_change() call to two calls to sysfs_setattr() and
> fsnotify_change().  The latter never fails and the former should always
> succeed if inode_change_ok() succeeds (inode_setattr() never fails
> unless the size is changing), so I think the correct thing to do is...
> 
> * Separate out sysfs_do_setattr() which doesn't do inode_change_ok() and
> just sets the attributes.  Making it a void function which triggers
> WARN_ON() when inode_setattr() fails would be a good idea.
> 
> * Implement sysfs_chmod_file() in similar way rename/move are
> implemented - allocate all resources and check conditions and then iff
> everything looks okay commit the operation by calling sysfs_do_setattr().
> 
> How does that sound?

Does this patch looks like what you are describing ?





















































Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 542.737.118 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430