On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 09:38:33AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > Ahhh - that's what nd->inode is for. I wondered. > > Am I correct in thinking that dentry->d_inode can only become NULL - it cannot > then become some other inode?
It can - consider somebody doing mkdir on that name right under you. _All_ we are guaranteed is that at some moment nd->inode matched the pathname this far and so was (at the same moment) path->dentry. We are not promised that these inode and dentry will remain associated with each other, etc. We ought to check ->d_seq after checking ->d_flags, BTW. _That_ will confirm that inode remained corresponding to that dentry until the time we'd observed d_is_symlink(dentry), i.e. make sure that inode *is* a symlink one. And yes, we probably would have to pass dentry and inode separately, more's the pity. -- 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/
