On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 00:39 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> That's safer indeed. To make things simpler, the patch below just
> systematically resets NEWPI and NEWPO to NULL as soon as they don't need
> to be dereferenced, does it look ok?
It does, but "NULL" is entirely unnecessary. I much pref
Thomas Bushnell BSG, le Tue 19 Aug 2008 23:09:56 -0700, a écrit :
> Your patch (which I see has been applied) seems to be clearly the Wrong
> Thing in the case where NP == DNP.
Aow right.
> The right thing to do is to throw NEWPI away at the very end of the
> function.
That's safer indeed. To m
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 00:12 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrotekfs/dir-lookup.c:478
>
> dir-lookup.c:478 is as follows:
>
> 469 if (! error)
> 470 {
> 471 if (flags & O_EXLOCK)
> 472 error = fshelp_acquire_lock (&np->userlock, &newpi->po->lock_status,
> 473
