Re: [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root

Al Viro <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 02:20:17AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> And it is actually wrong.  It fails to take into account the static
>> /proc entries.
>> > +	stat->nlink = proc_root.nlink + nr_processes();
>
> The hell it does. See ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this.

Right.  Sorry.  I had a similar issue and when I check your patch for the
same problem somehow I thought proc_root was a struct inode and not a
struct proc_dir_entry. 

Eric

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)
  • Re: [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root
    • From: Al Viro <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFT/PATCH] 3c509: use proper suspend/resume API
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 0/5] lightweight robust futexes: -V1
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root
• Next by thread: USB -UPS Problem on FC4
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]