Il 07/09/2013 17:01, Al Viro ha scritto:
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.
Ok. I'll remove it.
+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.
Good question. The only answer I've got now is for "historical" reason,
I can't see at the moment why we can remove the link information in case
of opened-but-unlinked, instead of delay the operation until evict.
+ 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...
I'll try to improve the behavior here.
Marco
--
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/
