On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:50:21 -0700 David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:

quoted text
> > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:23:22 -0400 Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > # ls -li
> > > total 0
> > > 4026532007 -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep  6 18:18 nvram
> > > 4026532067 -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep  6 18:18 rtc
> > > 4026532067 -r--r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep  6 18:18 rtc
> > > 4026532056 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Sep  6 18:18 snd-page-alloc
> >
> > Next -mm has
> >
> > procfs-detect-duplicate-names.patch
> > procfs-detect-duplicate-names-fix.patch
> > procfs-detect-duplicate-names-fix-fix-2.patch
> >
> > which will at least tell us who the second offender is.
> 
> Semes pretty clear that this must be procfs itself...
> when a filesystem sees a name in a directory, it should
> refuse to make another file with the same name.  And it
> should *never* reuse inode numbers...
> 

procfs can reject the attempt to create the file, but the bottom line
is that two different callsites are trying to create the same file.  One
of those callsites needs fixing?
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/