Re: [PATCH] fs: O_* bit numbers uniqueness check

[Andreas Schwab]

Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:07:01PM +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Le 06/01/2010 07:55, Wu Fengguang a Ãcrit :
>> > The O_* bit numbers are defined in 20+ arch/*, and hence can silently
>> > overlap. Add a boot time check to ensure the uniqueness as suggested
>> > by David Miller.
>> > 
>> > CC: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > CC: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  {
>> > +	/* please add new bits here to ensure allocation uniqueness */
>> > +	BUG_ON(20 != hweight32(
>> > +		O_RDONLY	| O_WRONLY	| O_RDWR	|
>> > +		O_CREAT		| O_EXCL	| O_NOCTTY	|
>> > +		O_TRUNC		| O_APPEND	| O_NONBLOCK	|
>> > +		O_SYNC		| FASYNC	| O_DIRECT	|
>> > +		O_LARGEFILE	| O_DIRECTORY	| O_NOFOLLOW	|
>> > +		O_NOATIME	| O_CLOEXEC	| O_RANDOM	|
>> > +		FMODE_EXEC	| FMODE_NONOTIFY));
>> > +
>> 
>> I cannot test it, but given O_RDONLY is 0, are you sure 20 bits are actually set ?
>
> Yes, I tested it. The tricky one is O_SYNC, which actually has two bits..

What if a new architecture wants to use a single bit value (since it
does not need backwards compatibility)?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/