Commit 578c8183 authored May 08, 2007 by Alexey Dobriyan Committed by Linus Torvalds May 08, 2007

proc: remove pathetic ->deleted WARN_ON



WARN_ON(de && de->deleted); is sooo unreliable. Why?

proc_lookup				remove_proc_entry
===========				=================
lock_kernel();
spin_lock(&proc_subdir_lock);
[find proc entry]
spin_unlock(&proc_subdir_lock);
					spin_lock(&proc_subdir_lock);
					[find proc entry]

proc_get_inode
==============
WARN_ON(de && de->deleted);			...

					if (!atomic_read(&de->count))
						free_proc_entry(de);
					else
						de->deleted = 1;

So, if you have some strange oops [1], and doesn't see this WARN_ON it means
nothing.

[1] try_module_get() of module which doesn't exist, two lines below
    should suffice, or not?

Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

parent 59cd0cbc

fs/proc/inode.c

+0 −2

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -146,8 +146,6 @@ struct inode proc_get_inode(struct super_block sb, unsigned int ino,
		{
		struct inode * inode;

		WARN_ON(de && de->deleted);

		if (de != NULL && !try_module_get(de->owner))
		goto out_mod;

Admin message