On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 06:37:36PM +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
At first glance, this looks sane, thanks a lot.
I think we have always been failing this case as I know securityfs also
has this same issue, and the code base is pretty much identical.
So don't worry that this patch caused this issue.
I'll queue it up unless there are any other objections to it.