On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent <ikent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
> that, then use it in autofs?
Yup. That's the standard pattern, although usually we *strive* to make
the unlocked versions be static to the internal code, and then use
them there for the various helpers. In your case that seems
impossible, since you do depend on holding the d_lock in the caller
after the tests. But at least we don't have to duplicate the code and
have it in two unrelated places.
Al? Comments?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe autofs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
