[PATCH 1 of 2] vfs: add the possibility to have a "ward" to check vfs usage

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 08/14/2016 04:48 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> […]
>>> For atomictmp, we probably want to channel their usage through as vfs to
>>> be able to cover them.
>>
>> I mean atomictemp=True is handled before calling ward(). And I think
>> atomic
>> operation should be allowed without taking a lock, but ward() should
>> be called
>> no matter if operation is atomic or not.
>
> Ha, good catch. yeah we should convey the value of atomictemp to the ward.

So fixing the atomictemp case raise a whole new herd of warning. I'll 
have to have a closer look at what they are but we could come with many 
exceptions or rethink the approach a bit.

Cheers.

-- 
Pierre-Yves David