On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 01:06 +0530, Balaji Rao wrote: > The idea of the patch seems correct to me, that once we "own" the > lock, an attempt to take it again should be a nop.
Well, kind of correct. There are potentially race conditions with the handling of f->readdir_process, but given that we only ever really compare it to 'current', it's actually going to turn out OK in practice. You won't ever actually get a false negative (and deadlock) or a false positive (and go through lookup() without locking), as far as I can tell. But still, it's ugly as sin and I'd much rather come up with a _proper_ fix in the VFS. I was looking at it at one point, and didn't actually apply that patch to the JFFS2 tree. Since general btrfs work is now more of a priority for me than getting JFFS2 to be NFS-exportable was, I think I'll pick up where I left off with that. In the meantime, we have an evil hack which at least ought to work for now. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre [EMAIL PROTECTED] Intel Corporation -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
