Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> wrote:
>>
>> Except that today d_invalidate drops the dcache lock and
>> calls shrink_dcache_parent. Which gets you into exactly the same
>> complex "walk parents and check all siblings" code.
>
> Hmm. It only does th
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>
> Except that today d_invalidate drops the dcache lock and
> calls shrink_dcache_parent. Which gets you into exactly the same
> complex "walk parents and check all siblings" code.
Hmm. It only does that for directories that have sub-ent
ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
> But when shrink_dcache_parent and check_submounts_and_drop are
> effectiely the same function I can't possibly see how you can argue how
> the locking has changed or that I am trying to hide things.
And in particular the only locking change that
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> the whole check_submounts_and_drop thing walks the parent chain and
>> locks each parent with the renamelock held for writing.
>
> Oops, my bad about the write lock, brainfart due to grepping and
> reading th
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> the whole check_submounts_and_drop thing walks the parent chain and
> locks each parent with the renamelock held for writing.
Oops, my bad about the write lock, brainfart due to grepping and
reading the wrong context...
check_submounts_a
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
>
> The one difference between d_invalidate and check_submounts_and_drop
> is that d_invalidate must respect it when a d_revalidate method has
> earlier called d_drop so preserve the d_unhashed check in
> d_invalidate.
What?
There's anoth
6 matches
Mail list logo
