Quoting Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Jan Blunck (JB) writes:
>
> JB> i_sem does NOT protect the dcache. Also not in real_lookup(). The lock
> must be
> JB> acquired for ->lookup() and because we might sleep on i_sem, we have to
> get it
> JB> early and check for repopulation of the d
> Jan Blunck (JB) writes:
JB> i_sem does NOT protect the dcache. Also not in real_lookup(). The lock
must be
JB> acquired for ->lookup() and because we might sleep on i_sem, we have to
get it
JB> early and check for repopulation of the dcache.
dentry is part of dcache, right? i_sem prote
Quoting Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Jan Blunck (JB) writes:
>
> >> 1) i_sem protects dcache too
>
> JB> Where? i_sem is the per-inode lock, and shouldn't be used else.
>
> read comments in fs/namei.c:read_lookup()
>
i_sem does NOT protect the dcache. Also not in real_lookup(). The l
> Jan Blunck (JB) writes:
>> 1) i_sem protects dcache too
JB> Where? i_sem is the per-inode lock, and shouldn't be used else.
read comments in fs/namei.c:read_lookup()
>> 2) tmpfs has no "own" data, so we can use it this way (see 2nd patch)
>> 3) I have pdirops patch for ext3, but it ne
Quoting Alex Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 1) i_sem protects dcache too
Where? i_sem is the per-inode lock, and shouldn't be used else.
> 2) tmpfs has no "own" data, so we can use it this way (see 2nd patch)
> 3) I have pdirops patch for ext3, but it needs some cleaning ...
I think you didn't
