On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:22:36AM +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> +int pram_add_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + struct inode *dir = dentry->d_parent->d_inode;
> + struct pram_inode *pidir, *pi, *pitail = NULL;
> + u64 tail_ino, prev_ino;
> +
> + const char *name = dentry->d_name.name;
> +
> + int namelen = min_t(unsigned int, dentry->d_name.len, PRAM_NAME_LEN);
Whatever the hell for? Your ->lookup() rejects dentries with names longer
than PRAM_NAME_LEN with an error, so they won't reach this function at all.
> +int pram_remove_link(struct inode *inode)
Umm... That's called on rename (for old one) *and* inode eviction when link
count goes to zero. What's the point of keeping unlinked ones (unlink/rmdir/
rename victims) on those lists? Sure, you skip them on lookups, but why
delay link removal until eviction? You pay for that with extra locking,
BTW - if not for that, you wouldn't need your i_link_mutex at all.
> + pi = pram_get_inode(sb, inode->i_ino);
> +
> + switch ((u32)file->f_pos) {
> + case 0:
> + ret = dir_emit_dot(file, ctx);
> + ctx->pos = 1;
> + return ret;
Really? So on the first call of ->iterate() you just generate one
entry and don't even try to produce more? And it looks like the
rest is no nicer...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
