On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 16:36 +0900, [email protected] wrote: > Tyler Hicks:
> I guess the problem was related to the i_count including my fixes for > ecryptfs_unlink() and ecryptfs_link(). Current ecryptfs_link() calls > ecryptfs_interpose(), but obviously the inode is not I_NEW and the > incremented i_count is decremented again (finally unchanged). > The current unnecessary d_drop()s may help hiding the problem, but I am > not sure. I think you're hitting on something here. I never understood the need for the d_drop()s, but taking them out broke things. They probably are just papering over bugs where the ecryptfs inode is not being properly updated after changes are made to the lower inode. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ecryptfs-devel More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
