Re: [RESEND] The initmpfs patches.

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:06:39 -0500 Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:

> Attached, so you don't have to fish them out of:
> 
>    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1306.3/04204.html

Too hard.  Especially when I want to reply to a patch.  Please resend
as a patch series in the time-honoured fashion?

> --- a/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ramfs/inode.c
> @@ -247,7 +247,14 @@ struct dentry *ramfs_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>  static struct dentry *rootfs_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
>  	int flags, const char *dev_name, void *data)
>  {
> -	return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags|MS_NOUSER, data, ramfs_fill_super);
> +	static int once;
> +
> +	if (once)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +	else
> +		once++;
> +
> +	return mount_nodev(fs_type, flags, data, ramfs_fill_super);
>  }

The patches do this in a couple of places.  The treatment of `once' is
obviously racy.  Probably it is unlikely to matter in these contexts,
but it does set a poor example.  And it's so trivially fixed with, for
example, test_and_set_bit() that I do think it's worth that change.