On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 10:34:08AM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: > On tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:26:57 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:16:53PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > >> Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54) > >>> Hi gang, > >>> > >>> I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been in the back > >>> of my mind for a while. I *hope* that the fix is pretty simple: just > >>> don't manufacture a fake f_pos, I *think* we can abuse f_version as an > >>> indicator that we shouldn't return entries. Does this look reasonable? > >> > >> I like it, and it doesn't look too far away from how others are abusing > >> f_version. Have you tried with NFS? I don't think it'll hurt, but NFS > >> loves to surprise me. > > > > Mm, no, I hadn't. I'll give it a go tomorrow. What could go wrong? :) > > If we can not use f_version, we can use private_data. I think this variant is > safe.
private_data is used within the ioctl user transactions, so a readdir(mountpoint) with a user transaction running can break it. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html