Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|
|
|
|
|
knew it
|
|
I'm suprised how short this patch is. It also feels like I've
introducted a vulnerability somewhere with it. Hopefully it's a false
feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
preparing for HANDLE_PROCFS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't really prevent anything, and makes it harder to test edge cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old name could have suggested that it held a response to a request
received by fs_wait. The new name is unfortunately very similar to
the `struct vfs_request` already used internally in the kernel, but
it's better at conveying that it contains a filesystem request yet to
be handled.
vfs_request - virtual filesystem request (a bad name in hindsight)
ufs_request - user filesystem request
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|