Commit 578c8183 authored by Alexey Dobriyan's avatar Alexey Dobriyan Committed by Linus Torvalds

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: default avatarAlexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 59cd0cbc
...@@ -146,8 +146,6 @@ struct inode *proc_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, unsigned int ino, ...@@ -146,8 +146,6 @@ struct inode *proc_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, unsigned int ino,
{ {
struct inode * inode; struct inode * inode;
WARN_ON(de && de->deleted);
if (de != NULL && !try_module_get(de->owner)) if (de != NULL && !try_module_get(de->owner))
goto out_mod; goto out_mod;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment