On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:56:54PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > think it's OK, but I'd also like someone like Christian to confirm > > that d_path() can't actually end up sleeping. Glancing over it, I > > We annotated ->d_dname() as non-sleepable in locking.rst so even > ->d_dname() shouldn't and curently doesn't sleep. There's a few > codepaths that end up calling d_path() under spinlocks but none of them > should end up calling anything related to ->d_name() and so wouldn't be > affected even if it did sleep. Wonderful, exactly what I had also concluded. In that case, I think we can relax the sleepable requirement across this suite of BPF kfuncs. Does anyone object? /M
