On 11/3/05, Dave Kleikamp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 20:56 -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote:
> > + ecryptfs_fput(lower_file);
>
> Why the call to ecryptfs_fput() here? The caller does it's own fput on
> lower_file.
Hmm, good catch. That slipped through us - and to be hoenst, I have no
explination other than, it's wrong. ecryptfs_write_headers should not
be responsible for put'ing that which it did not get.
I'm wondering if I should be sending 1 patch per tiny fix like this,
or if I should be waiting for a few more changes, so as to not flood
the threads with minor patches?
Thanks,
Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
