On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 05:08:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Actually, I never got a formal ack from Al. I did send it repeatedly, > but I assume he has been too busy to respond. We've had it sitting in > linux-next for a couple of months, and he did suggest that approach in > the first place, but I too would also prefer to see his official ack on > it. "Suggested approach" had been about inode_insert5() changes, right? But that's fs/inode.c side of things... I have to admit that I'd missed the unlining d_same_name() - exporting the sucker per se didn't look insane and I hadn't looked at that in details ;-/ Looking at it now... might be worth renaming it into __d_same_name(), leaving it inlined and exporting a wrapper; not sure if the impact on d_lookup()/__d_lookup()/d_alloc_parallel() is worth worrying about it, though. Profiling a case when we have a plenty of files in the same directory on tmpfs, with something earlier in the pathname to kick out of RCU mode (e.g. going through /proc/self/cwd) might be interesting...
